GR L 4301; (July, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4301; July 29, 1954
Maximo Omandam, applicant-appellee, vs. The Director of Lands, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Maximo Omandam applied for registration under the Land Registration Act of a parcel of agricultural land in Occidental Misamis. Notice of hearing was issued, published, and served. At the hearing on December 28, 1949, representatives of the Bureau of Lands and the Philippine National Bank were granted fifteen days to file a written opposition. A general default was entered against those who did not appear. On May 2, 1950, the court rendered judgment decreeing registration in Omandam’s name. On June 6, 1950, the Director of Lands filed an opposition, and on June 16, 1950, filed a motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence and lack of notice of the May 2 hearing, which was denied. On August 15, 1950, the provincial fiscal, on behalf of the Director of Lands, filed a motion for relief from judgment on the ground of excusable neglect, alleging faulty communication between Occidental Misamis and Manila caused the failure to file the opposition. This motion was denied by the court on September 9, 1950, prompting this appeal by the Director of Lands.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying the Director of Lands’ motion for relief from judgment under Rule 38.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the motion for relief. The Court held that the motion failed to show excusable neglect. Even granting faulty communication, there was no justification for the delay in filing the opposition, which was filed on June 6, 1950, long after the granted period. The Court noted that the Solicitor General had earlier informed the court that the Director of Lands did not deem it necessary to file an opposition, based on field investigation. The reservation in that indorsement to take future steps did not justify the delay. Furthermore, the motion for relief lacked an affidavit of merits, as the verifying provincial fiscal did not have personal knowledge of the factual basis for the opposition (e.g., that the applicant lacked possession since July 26, 1894). The petition was insufficient in form and substance to justify the court in requiring an answer under Section 4, Rule 38, making a hearing under Section 6 unavailable. The order was affirmed without costs.