Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1352?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[PEDRO RIVERA v. C. CARBALLO](https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1352?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c1352}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 26130, Nov 18, 1926 ]

PEDRO RIVERA v. C. CARBALLO +

DECISION

49 Phil. 625

[ G. R. No. 26130, November 18, 1926 ]

PEDRO RIVERA AND PAULA TUALLA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE C. CARBALLO, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

OSTRAND, J.:

This is a petition for relief under  section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners alleging  that, through lack of due  notification of the trial  of the title to lot No. 2733 in cadastral case No. 9 of the Province  of Nueva  Ecija, they were deprived of the opportunity  to assert their claim to  the ownership of said  lot, and that, as a consequence thereof, the lot  was erroneously  adjudicated to the  respondents Villaroman and Valino.

It appears from the record that both the petitioners and the aforesaid respondents,  in due  time, filed claims to the lot in question.  The two petitioners were living together as husband and wife, but do not appear to be legally married.  The matter came up for trial on October 16,  1925, but only the respondents Villaroman and Valino appeared formally. The petitioner Paula Tualla  appeared in regard to another lot on the same day and when  lot No. 2733 was called for trial, she explained to the court that the petitioner Pedro Rivera was unable to appear by reason of the fact that it was necessary for him to be present in the municipality of San Jose at the induction of his successor in the office of the municipal councilman.  The court did not accept this  as  a valid  excuse  for the non-appearance of  Rivera, declared him in default, and, upon trial, ordered the registration  of the lot  in  the names of the respondents Villaroman and Valino.

Under section 513, supra, relief from judgments by default cannot be granted if the default is due to inexcusable negligence  on the part  of the petitioner, and it  is  plain that the petitioner Rivera was  guilty of such negligence  in allowing his  desire to attend at the festivities incident  to the induction into  office of the new municipal officers  of San  Jose to outweigh  his duty to be present in the  court at the trial  of his case.  The record is conclusive that he had  ample notice of the trial and  that  he could have been present had he so  desired.  The negligence of the other petitioner, Paula Tualla, is almost equally inexcusable.  She claimed to be the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the land, was  present in the court  when the  case  was called, and had full opportunity to assert her claim.  That she failed to do so was entirely her own fault.

Another reason for denying the petition  is that it  was not presented within sixty days after the petitioners  first learned of the rendition of the judgment by default.   The judgment was rendered on October 16, 1925, and the petition was not filed  until June 15, 1926.  Paula Tualla knew of the declaration of default on the day  it was made  and Rivera was  informed  of it shortly afterwards.  Copy of the judgment was sent to Rivera by registered  mail  and received by  him on December 16, 1925,  according to the registry receipt, Exhibit Z.  In  these  circumstances,  this court has no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment.

The petition is denied with the costs against the petitioners jointly and severally.  So ordered.

Avanceña,  C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

tags