Dizon v. Corporacion Franciscana
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns an ejectment suit filed by Corporacion Franciscana against Higinio Dizon. The underlying dispute appears to stem from Dizon's occupancy of premises at 2536-A Lamayan Street, Sta. Ana, Manila. A judgment by default was rendered against Dizon by the City Court of Manila, ordering him to vacate the premises and pay back rentals to Corporacion Franciscana. 2. Procedural History: Higinio Dizon filed a petition for relief from the judgment by default in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The City Court of Manila had previously issued the default judgment against Dizon in an ejectment suit. Corporacion Franciscana moved to dismiss Dizon's petition for relief, arguing it was filed beyond the reglementary periods stipulated in Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The Court of First Instance dismissed Dizon's petition, finding it was filed outside the sixty-day period from Dizon's learning of the judgment. Dizon appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Dizon appealed the dismissal of his petition for relief to the Supreme Court, arguing that his petition was timely filed. He invoked the ruling in Follosco vs. Director of Lands to suggest that a petition for relief could be filed even after six months from the judgment entry. He also cited Abellana vs. Dosdos, alleging new facts regarding rental increases by Corporacion Franciscana after the judgment became final. The Supreme Court examined the records and found Dizon's arguments to be without merit, noting that his petition was filed out of time and that the new facts he raised were irrelevant to the timeliness of his petition for relief.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for relief was filed within the reglementary periods prescribed by Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Whether new facts and circumstances arising after a judgment has become final can be a basis for suspending execution or for a petition for relief.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order of dismissal. The petition for relief was filed out of time, and the new matters raised on appeal were irrelevant to the timeliness of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for relief: The Court reiterated that a petition for relief under Rule 38 must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or order was entered. These periods are strict and non-extendible. Even if the sixty-day period were counted from August 17, 1964, when Dizon was served with a copy of the order denying his motion for reconsideration, his petition filed on December 18, 1964, was still out of time. The Court clarified that there is no ruling in Follosco vs. Director of Lands that allows a petition for relief to be filed even after six months from the time the judgment or order was entered; rather, the six-month period serves as a limitation to the sixty-day period. The petition must be filed within 60 days after knowledge is acquired, provided it is not beyond six months after the proceeding has actually occurred. On the relevance of new facts and circumstances: The Court held that the new matter injected by Dizon on appeal, concerning the alleged increase in rental after the judgment became final, was irrelevant to the issue of the timeliness of his petition for relief. The ruling in Abellana vs. Dosdos, which allows suspension of execution based on new facts, pertains to circumstances that would affect the rights of the parties after a judgment has become final and before execution, or as a basis for a separate action, not as a justification for filing a belated petition for relief from the judgment itself. The Court also noted a discrepancy in the ejectment complaint regarding ownership of the premises, but deemed it a point not decided in the present case concerning the timeliness of the petition for relief.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within the reglementary periods of sixty (60) days after learning of the judgment and not more than six (6) months after the judgment was entered. These periods are non-extendible and cannot be suspended. New facts or circumstances arising after a judgment has become final are generally irrelevant to the timeliness of a petition for relief.