G.R. No. 44094 ; May 26, 1938
PABLO MONTENEGRO, applicant-appellee, vs. RAMON DIOKNO, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Pablo Montenegro applied for the registration of a parcel of land. Ramon Diokno claimed ownership over a portion included in Montenegro’s survey plan. The case was set for hearing on February 18, 1935, but the judge was absent. The clerk of court, on his own authority, opened the session. Later, on March 5, 1935, the judge (then acting in another court) authorized the clerk to receive Montenegro’s evidence ex parte. On March 6, 1935, the court declared a general default and rendered a decision adjudicating the land to Montenegro. Diokno, alleging he was led to believe the hearing would be reset and he received no notice of the proceedings, filed a motion on April 16, 1935, to set aside the decision and admit his opposition. The trial court denied his motion.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying Diokno’s motion to set aside the decision and admit his opposition.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the appealed judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The circumstances—the judge’s absence on the hearing date, the clerk’s unauthorized actions, the ex parte reception of evidence without a new hearing notice, and Diokno’s discovery of the decision only later—constituted sufficient excuse for Diokno’s failure to appear and present his opposition. The conditions under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside a judgment and granting a new trial were present. Diokno’s sworn motion alleged facts which, if proven, could affect the outcome of the case.

AI Generated by Armztrong.