G.R. No. 26130 , November 18, 1926
PEDRO RIVERA AND PAULA TUALLA, petitioners, vs. Honorable C. CARBALLO, Judge of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, ET AL., respondents.

DOCTRINE:
A petition for relief from a judgment by default under Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be granted if the default was due to the petitioner’s inexcusable negligence. Furthermore, such a petition must be filed within sixty (60) days from the petitioner’s knowledge of the judgment; otherwise, the court loses jurisdiction to grant relief.

FACTS

Petitioners Pedro Rivera and Paula Tualla claimed ownership of Lot No. 2733 in Cadastral Case No. 9 of Nueva Ecija. Respondents Villaroman and Valino also filed a claim for the same lot. The case was set for trial on October 16, 1925. On that day, only respondents appeared. Paula Tualla was present in court for another lot but did not formally appear for Lot No. 2733. When the lot was called, she informed the court that Pedro Rivera could not attend because he had to be present at the induction ceremony of new municipal officers in San Jose. The court did not accept this excuse, declared Rivera in default, proceeded with the trial in his absence, and adjudicated the lot to respondents Villaroman and Valino.

Petitioners filed a petition for relief under Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging they were deprived of due notification and the opportunity to assert their claim. The petition was filed on June 15, 1926.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioners’ failure to appear at trial constituted excusable negligence warranting relief from judgment.
2. Whether the petition for relief was filed within the reglementary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition.

1. On the issue of excusable negligence: The Court held that the petitioners’ negligence was inexcusable. For Pedro Rivera, choosing to attend a municipal induction ceremony over his duty to appear in court for the trial of his land claim constituted a clear disregard of a legal obligation. For Paula Tualla, she was physically present in court when the case was called but failed to assert her claim, which was entirely her own fault. Therefore, the default was due to their own inexcusable negligence, barring relief under Section 513.

2. On the issue of timeliness: The Court ruled that the petition was filed out of time. The judgment was rendered on October 16, 1925. Paula Tualla knew of the default on that same day. A copy of the judgment was sent by registered mail to Pedro Rivera and was received by him on December 16, 1925, as evidenced by the registry receipt. The petition for relief was only filed on June 15, 1926, which was beyond the 60-day period prescribed by law from the time they learned of the judgment. Consequently, the Court lost jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

The petition was denied with costs against the petitioners.