G.R. No. 138500 . September 16, 2005
Andy Quelnan, Petitioner, vs. VHF Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent VHF Philippines filed an ejectment suit against petitioner Andy Quelnan before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. The MeTC rendered a decision against Quelnan, finding that summons and a copy of the complaint were validly served through substituted service upon his wife. Quelnan failed to file an answer. A copy of the adverse decision was sent to Quelnan by registered mail but was returned unclaimed despite three postmaster notices. The decision became final and executory. Subsequently, a writ of execution and notice to vacate were served on Quelnan’s wife on May 18, 1993.
On May 24, 1993, Quelnan filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging he was never served with summons and only learned of the judgment on May 18, 1993. The RTC granted the petition, accepting Quelnan’s claim that his wife tore the summons during a marital squabble, constituting excusable negligence. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ruling that the petition for relief was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Quelnan’s petition for relief from judgment for being filed out of time.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The petition for relief was filed beyond the 60-day period mandated by Section 3, Rule 38. The Court rejected Quelnan’s argument that the period should be reckoned from May 18, 1993, when he allegedly gained actual knowledge. Applying the presumption of service under Rule 13, Section 10 (formerly Section 8) of the Rules of Court, a decision sent by registered mail is deemed served upon the addressee’s failure to claim it after the first notice from the postmaster. Here, the decision was returned unclaimed after three notices in November and December 1992. Therefore, Quelnan is presumed to have learned of the judgment in December 1992 at the latest. Counting from then, his petition filed in May 1993 was clearly beyond the 60-day limit.
The Court emphasized that the reglementary period for a petition for relief is strictly construed and cannot be extended by courts. Quelnan’s failure to claim his mail, despite notices, constituted negligence, not excusable neglect. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. Since the MeTC decision had long become final and executory, relief was no longer available. The petition was denied.