Claridad v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Blas Carpo, Vicente Carpo, and Liberata Ventura filed an action for partition against petitioners Bartolome, Maximo, Juan, Aquilina, Francisco, and Eusebio, all surnamed Claridad, concerning the estate of the late Agaton Claridad. Procedural History: Petitioners were duly summoned but failed to file their responsive pleadings within the reglementary period. Consequently, they were declared in default by orders dated November 26, 1963, January 6, and January 16, 1964. The plaintiffs were then allowed to adduce evidence, leading to a decision rendered on February 25, 1964, which declared the parties as legal heirs and ordered the partition of seven parcels of land, among other reliefs. An amendatory order was issued on March 11, 1964. Petitioners, upon receiving the decision, filed a motion to lift the order of default and set aside the decision and amendatory order. This motion was denied by Judge Arturo B. Santos on several grounds, including being filed out of time, lack of proper verification, absence of an affidavit of merit, and failure to allege facts constituting mistake, excusable negligence, or a meritorious cause of action. Subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify and set aside the orders declaring them in default, the decision, and subsequent orders, and to allow them to file an answer and have the case retried. They claimed that they mistakenly believed the second case (Civil Case No. 3885) was the same as a previously dismissed case (Civil Case No. 502), and that due to their residences being scattered and their lack of education, they did not fully understand the summons and the nature of the new case until they received the decision. They also alleged defective and incomplete service of summons.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners' motion to lift the order of default and set aside the decision. Whether the petitioners were guilty of laches in filing their petition for certiorari.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The orders of the respondent judge denying the motion to lift the order of default and set aside the decision are affirmed. The petitioners are found guilty of laches.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The respondent judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners' motion to lift the order of default and set aside the decision. The petitioners admitted in their motion that their failure to file an answer was due to "honest mistake or excusable negligence" or "sheer ignorance of the legal effects and consequences of the court's summons." However, the respondent judge found these grounds insufficient, noting that the motion was filed out of time, not properly verified, and not accompanied by an affidavit of merit. The judge also observed that the petitioners' delay in appearing suggested a wilful intent to prolong the litigation. Furthermore, the petitioners' claim of defective service of summons was not specifically substantiated, and the court had the right to rely on the sheriffs' return, which carries a presumption of regularity. The petitioners did not raise the issue of defective service until their motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. On Issue 2: The petitioners are guilty of laches. They filed the petition for certiorari on October 2, 1968, ninety-nine (99) days after receiving the order denying their second motion for reconsideration on June 25, 1968. This considerable delay in seeking appellate relief, after multiple denials by the trial court, demonstrates a lack of diligence and bars them from seeking equitable relief through a petition for certiorari. The Court reiterated that the granting or denial of motions to set aside default orders or for new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and such discretion will not be interfered with by appellate courts unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of petitioners' motion to lift an order of default and set aside a decision. The Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear case of mistake or excusable negligence, as their motion was filed out of time, not properly verified, and lacked an affidavit of merit. Moreover, the Court found that the petitioners were guilty of laches due to the significant delay in filing their petition for certiorari after the denial of their motions for reconsideration.