Corsino v. Nicolas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Andres Nicolas filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession of a parcel of land against petitioners Flora Corsino, Monico Nicolas, Manuel Agustin, Jovencio Agraan, Amante Palomones, and Julio Hilario. The complaint alleged that the deceased Alfredo Nicolas was the registered owner, died intestate leaving only Andres as heir, and that the defendants usurped the land by force, violence, strategy, and stealth. Procedural History: Summonses were served on July 31, 1973, but Flora Corsino and Monico Nicolas could not be located. On August 16, 1973, the defendants filed an ex-parte motion for extension of time to file an answer. Before the motion was acted upon, on August 20, 1973, the defendants filed their Answer, claiming they are heirs of Alfredo Nicolas and that Andres took possession of the land. On the same day, the plaintiff filed a motion to declare defendants in default. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike out the answer and declare defendants in default for being filed out of time. On October 3, 1973, the respondent Judge ordered the answer stricken and declared the defendants in default, appointing a commissioner to receive plaintiff's evidence. On October 24, 1973, the respondent Judge rendered a decision based on plaintiff's evidence. After motions for reconsideration and a Petition for Relief were denied, a Writ of Execution was issued. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition to annul the orders of default, the decision, and the writ of execution, praying for the admission of their Answer and for a temporary restraining order.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Flora Corsino and Monico Nicolas in default despite the lack of service of summons. Whether the respondent Judge erred in declaring the other defendants in default for a one-day delay in filing a motion for extension of time.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The order dated October 3, 1973, the decision rendered on October 24, 1973, and the Writ of Execution dated January 21, 1974, all issued in Civil Case No. 445-S, are annulled and set aside. The temporary restraining order is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the respondent Judge committed a serious error and abused his discretion in declaring Flora Corsino and Monico Nicolas in default. The records clearly established that Flora was never served summons as she could not be located, and the return for Monico was fraudulently thumbmarked by the plaintiff himself. Under Section 23, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons. Since these defendants voluntarily appeared by filing a motion for extension on August 16, 1973, and subsequently filed their Answer on August 20, 1973, they were well within the reglementary period. Consequently, the trial court lacked the basis to declare them in default, as the time for filing their responsive pleading had not yet lapsed. The Court emphasized that their presence was indispensable to the case, as they claimed successional rights as the widow and son of the deceased, which are superior to the claims of the plaintiff. On Issue 2: The Court found an abuse of discretion in declaring the other defendants in default. Although summonses were served on them on July 31, 1973, and the period technically expired on August 15, 1973, they filed a motion for extension only one day late, on August 16, 1973. Citing Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, the Court reiterated that rules must be liberally construed to assist parties in obtaining a just determination of every action. The one-day delay and the subsequent filing of the Answer on August 20, 1973, were indicative of good faith and a lack of intent to delay the proceedings. Following the ruling in Fuentes v. Macandog, the Court cautioned that default should not be used as a mechanical shortcut that sacrifices due process for the sake of speed. Since no substantial right of the plaintiff was affected, the respondent Judge should have admitted the Answer and allowed the parties to litigate the merits of the case fairly.
Main Doctrine
A voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons. When defendants voluntarily appeared and filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer, and subsequently filed their answer within a reasonable period, it constitutes an abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction to declare them in default and strike out their answer as filed out of time, especially when procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote justice.