G.R. No. L-37121. December 28, 1973.
ANTONIO IMPERIAL, petitioner, vs. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, District Judge of Camarines Sur, JULIAN RELEVANTE and JUAN OCFEMIA, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a forcible entry complaint filed by respondent Julian Relevante against petitioner Antonio Imperial in the Naga City Court. Respondent Juan Ocfemia intervened, claiming both parties forcibly occupied his land. The city court rendered a judgment on October 7, 1967, declaring Relevante the rightful possessor of the house against Imperial, but also declaring intervenor Ocfemia the rightful possessor of the land against both. Petitioner Imperial appealed this adverse judgment to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur.
In the appealed case, after several settings and absences by plaintiff Relevante and his counsel, the case was set for pre-trial on April 7, 1972. Relevante and his counsel again failed to appear, while defendant Imperial and intervenor Ocfemia with their counsels were present. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case for non-suit. Respondent court declared plaintiff non-suited and dismissed the case but further ruled that such dismissal operated to revive the vacated judgment of the city court and ordered its execution pending appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case for non-suit in a forcible entry case appealed to the Court of First Instance results in the revival of the inferior court’s vacated judgment.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the respondent court’s orders. The legal logic is clear under the applicable Rules of Court. When a defendant appeals a forcible entry case from an inferior court to the Court of First Instance, the appeal vacates the judgment of the inferior court. The case is then tried de novo. If the plaintiff, who is now the appellant in the appealed case, is declared non-suited for failure to prosecute or appear at pre-trial under Rule 17, Section 3 and Rule 20, Section 2, his action is dismissed. This dismissal is unqualified and does not revive the already vacated inferior court judgment. The revival of a vacated judgment under Rule 40, Section 9 occurs only when the appeal itself is withdrawn or dismissed, which was not the situation here. The respondent court’s erroneous application of Rule 70, Section 8 (which pertains to execution pending appeal in ejectment cases) to a scenario where the plaintiff-appellant was non-suited constituted a grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, plaintiff Relevante’s action against petitioner Imperial stands dismissed. The case was remanded for trial de novo solely on intervenor Ocfemia’s complaint.