G.R. No. 6751 , September 16, 1911
JOSE DURAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIA ARBOLEDA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant, Maria Arboleda, filed a demurrer to the complaint. The court overruled the demurrer through an oral order issued in the presence of both parties and their lawyers, granting the defendant five days to file an answer. The defendant did not file her answer within the five-day period. On the sixth day, the plaintiff moved to declare the defendant in default and to present evidence. Shortly after the motion was made, the defendant appeared in court and tendered her answer, but the court refused to accept it for being filed out of time. The court then declared the defendant in default, received the plaintiff’s evidence, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, arguing that (1) she was not notified of the motion to declare her in default, and (2) her answer should have been accepted because the time to file it had not yet expired under the court’s rules.

ISSUE

1. Whether the defendant was entitled to notice of the motion to declare her in default.
2. Whether the defendant’s answer, filed on the sixth day, should have been accepted by the trial court.

RULING

1. On the first issue: The Supreme Court held that the defendant was not entitled to notice of the motion to declare her in default. Under Section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, once a demurrer is overruled and the defendant fails to answer within the time prescribed by the rules, the defendant is in default by operation of law. The plaintiff may then proceed to prove his case without further notice to the defendant.

2. On the second issue: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant. Rule 9 of the Court of First Instance required that when a demurrer to a complaint is overruled, the defendant shall answer within five days after service of written notice of the order by the plaintiff. Although the court orally announced its order overruling the demurrer in the defendant’s presence, the plaintiff failed to serve the written notice required by Rule 9. The defendant had the right to rely on the rule and await written notice before the five-day period began to run. Since no written notice was given, the defendant’s time to answer had not yet expired when she tendered her answer on the sixth day. The trial court therefore erred in refusing to accept the answer.

The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to accept the defendant’s answer and proceed to trial.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING (December 15, 1911):
The Supreme Court clarified that the written notice required under Rule 9 should be served on the defendant’s attorney of record, not on the defendant personally. The Court denied the motion for rehearing, emphasizing that adherence to the rules of court is mandatory, and litigants have the right to rely on them.