Abao v. Virtucio
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: J.M. Tuason and Co. Inc. filed a complaint for forcible entry against Alejandro Abao, alleging that Abao unlawfully entered and constructed a house on a portion of their registered land. Abao was served with a summons and his wife appeared in court, admitting the allegations and requesting until January 15, 1959, to remove their house. The Municipal Court rendered judgment ordering Abao to vacate the premises by January 15, 1959, and to pay monthly dues thereafter if he failed to comply. 2. Procedural History: After the Municipal Court rendered its decision on December 8, 1958, and Abao allegedly received a copy on December 16, 1958, the respondent company filed a motion for execution on July 14, 1959. Abao's counsel then filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial on August 1, 1959, arguing he only learned of the decision upon receiving the motion for execution and citing Republic Act No. 2616. The Municipal Court denied this motion on August 22, 1959, and subsequently issued an order for execution on August 28, 1959. Abao then filed a petition for certiorari or relief from judgment with the Court of First Instance of Rizal on September 3, 1959, which was dismissed on the same day. A subsequent motion for reconsideration and amended petition was also denied on September 26, 1959. 3. The Petition: This appeal is brought before the Supreme Court following the dismissal of Abao's petition for certiorari or relief from judgment by the Court of First Instance. The core issue is whether the lower court correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the petition for relief was filed beyond the six-month period from the Municipal Court's decision date (December 8, 1958), even if Abao only had notice later. Furthermore, the petition lacked the required affidavit of merit detailing fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and the facts constituting a valid defense, which is considered a fatal defect.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari or relief from judgment. Whether the petition for relief from judgment was filed within the reglementary periods. Whether the petition for relief from judgment was accompanied by the required affidavit of merit.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the Court of First Instance, dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari or relief from judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari or relief from judgment: The Supreme Court held that the Court of First Instance acted correctly in dismissing the petition. The decision of the Municipal Court was dated December 8, 1958. Even if the petitioner only had legal notice on July 14, 1959, when served with a motion for execution, the petition for relief filed on September 3, 1959, was still outside the six-month period from December 8, 1958, as required by Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the petition was filed out of time. On the timeliness of the petition for relief from judgment: The Court emphasized that a petition for relief must be filed within the periods prescribed by the Rules of Court. Section 3 of Rule 38 provides that a petition for relief from a judgment or final order must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or proceeding, and within six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered. In this case, the decision was dated December 8, 1958. The petition for relief was filed on September 3, 1959, which is beyond the six-month period from the date of the decision, rendering it untimely. On the requirement of an affidavit of merit: The Supreme Court reiterated the lower court's finding that the petition was not accompanied by an "affidavit of merit wherein are stated the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and the facts relied upon by petitioner to constitute his valid defense in the original case." The Court stressed that such a defect is fatal and serves as a jurisdictional basis for a court to entertain a petition for relief. Without this affidavit, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, as established in previous jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within the reglementary periods prescribed by the Rules of Court and must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit stating the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and the facts constituting a valid defense, as such affidavit serves as a jurisdictional basis for the court to entertain the petition.