Que v. Costales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Isabel Arrieta-Costales has been in possession of Lot No. 6023, a 7,033-square-meter parcel of land in Sta. Monica, Magsingal, Ilocos Sur, since 1960, claiming ownership and inheritance from Lorenzo Cariño, who died in 1960. In February 2000, respondent filed a complaint against petitioners, Spouses Benigno and Erlinda Que and Adela Urian, seeking the annulment of a Deed of Quitclaim and an Acknowledgment. These documents, purportedly signed by Isabel Arrieta (respondent's maiden name), transferred respondent's alleged rights to Lot No. 6023 to the Spouses Que, with Urian receiving P30,000 from them. Respondent asserted she never signed these documents and sought to be declared the owner of the property, which the Spouses Que had taken possession of and declared for tax purposes. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, declared the petitioners in default after their counsel failed to file an Answer. The RTC proceeded to hear the case ex parte and rendered judgment in favor of the respondent, adjudging her as the owner of Lot No. 6023 and annulling the Deed of Quitclaim and Acknowledgment. Petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration or new trial was denied by the RTC, which found Urian's motion belated and the Spouses Que's motion pro forma. A petition for relief from judgment filed by the petitioners under Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was also denied by the RTC. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed their petition, affirming the RTC's denial of relief from judgment. The CA found the petition for relief to be insufficient in form and substance, filed out of time, and improperly availed of, also holding that the petitioners were bound by their counsels' negligence. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution, arguing that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to appreciate that their Petition for Relief from Judgment stemmed from a default order caused by their counsel's negligence. They contend that this negligence deprived them of due process and that they should not lose their property through technicality. The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in the petition, affirming the CA's ruling. The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove fraud, mistake, or excusable negligence, that the negligence of their counsels was binding upon them, and that the petition for relief was filed out of time and improperly availed of as a remedy. Furthermore, the Court found no sufficient proof of Lorenzo Cariño's will devising the property to Gonzalo Carino, and that respondent had established ownership through acquisitive prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ petition for relief from judgment. Whether the negligence of petitioners' counsels constitutes excusable negligence that warrants relief from judgment, and whether petitioners were denied due process. Whether petitioners established ownership over Lot No. 6023 through the Deed of Adjudication With Sale and Lorenzo's alleged will. Whether the petition for relief from judgment was filed within the reglementary period. Whether new matters regarding the merits of the trial court's decision can be raised in the appeal.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 26, 2001, and its Resolution dated November 8, 2001, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for relief from judgment: The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for relief from judgment. The petition was insufficient in form and substance, filed out of time, and improperly availed of. A petition for relief is an equitable remedy available only as a last recourse when no other adequate remedy exists. Petitioners had already availed of other remedies, albeit belatedly or defectively, such as their motion for reconsideration or new trial. On excusable negligence and due process: The negligence of counsel generally binds the client. For the negligence to be considered excusable, it must be gross and amount to a clear abandonment of the client's cause, which was not sufficiently shown here. Petitioners' counsels' failure to file pleadings, a defective motion for reconsideration, and a belated petition for relief were considered simple negligence, not gross negligence. Petitioners were not denied procedural due process as they were afforded the opportunity to be heard, having been served with summons and the complaint, and later with the trial court's decision. On ownership claims: Petitioners' claim of ownership based on Lorenzo's alleged will was unsubstantiated. The alleged oral will was not proven to have been executed under the exceptional circumstances allowed by the Spanish Civil Code, nor was it presented for probate. Eusebia Cariño's affidavit merely indicated an intent to devise, not the execution of a will. The Deed of Quitclaim was found to have respondent's forged signature. Conversely, respondent's continuous possession of the property for nearly 40 years, coupled with acts of ownership like paying taxes, established her ownership by prescription under Article 1137 of the Civil Code. On the timeliness of the petition for relief: The petition for relief from judgment was filed beyond the 60-day period prescribed by Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Adela Urian received the trial court's decision on September 15, 2000, but the petition was filed on December 18, 2000. The filing of a motion for reconsideration or new trial, which was also belatedly filed, did not suspend the period for filing a petition for relief under Rule 38. On new matters raised: Petitioners were barred from raising new matters regarding the merits of the trial court's decision in the appeal, as they failed to present their case properly in the lower court. The Court found no merit in their contentions regarding the validity of the Deed of Quitclaim, the respondent's filiation, and the sufficiency of evidence for ownership.
Main Doctrine
The negligence of counsel binds the client, and a petition for relief from judgment based on such negligence is generally not granted unless it amounts to gross negligence that deprives the client of due process, or when its application results in the outright deprivation of property, or when the interests of justice so require. Furthermore, a petition for relief from judgment must be filed within the reglementary period and must be sufficient in form and substance.