G.R. No. 159699. March 16, 2005
ROSALINO P. ACANCE, et al., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES YOLANDA QUIJANO TRIA, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents, the Quijano siblings, filed an amended complaint to annul an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate executed by the Acance siblings and their mother, Angela, covering two parcels of land and apartment units in Muntinlupa. Respondents claimed the properties were conjugal assets of their parents, Angela and Vernier Quijano, acquired during their marriage, and that Angela’s signature on the settlement was forged or made without free will, thereby unlawfully excluding them as compulsory heirs. Petitioners, the Acance siblings, failed to file an answer. The trial court declared them in default. Petitioner Rosalino Acance, as attorney-in-fact, filed a Motion to Lift the order of default, attaching an affidavit of merit. He explained that he had filed a Motion to Represent Defendants which was not acted upon, that he had not received the complaint, and that the petitioners had meritorious defenses, including that the properties were acquired by Jesus and Angela during their cohabitation. The trial court denied the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s denial of the motion to lift order of default, and whether the default order was properly issued.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. On procedural grounds, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is not an absolute prerequisite for certiorari when the order is a patent nullity, when the questions raised have been duly raised and passed upon, or where an urgent resolution is essential. Here, the trial court’s denial was a patent nullity because the default order itself was improperly issued. The petitioners were non-resident American citizens, and summons were served by publication. The law requires strict compliance with every condition for extraterritorial service. The record did not establish that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners, rendering the default order void. Substantively, default judgments are disfavored. Courts must be liberal in setting aside orders of default unless a scheme to delay is evident. The petitioners demonstrated a meritorious defense regarding property acquisition and Angela’s valid waiver. Their failure to answer was not obstinate refusal but based on a belief that jurisdictional issues were pending. The case was remanded to the trial court to allow the petitioners to file their answer and for a full trial on the merits to achieve substantial justice.