GR L 10463; (June, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10463, June 18, 1957.
FELICIANO V. DELGADO, petitioner, vs. HON. PATRICIO C. CENIZA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, PEDRO CALAPIS and CRISPULO CALAPIS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Feliciano V. Delgado filed an action to recover possession of land and damages. After repeated postponements, the case was set for hearing on February 18, 1955. Notices were sent by registered mail but were returned “unclaimed.” The hearing proceeded in the absence of the defendants (respondents Pedro and Crispulo Calapis) and their counsel, resulting in a judgment in favor of Delgado. Copies of the decision were sent by registered mail to the defendants. A postmaster’s certificate indicated the letters were received on March 28, 1955, by Isidoro Calapis (son of Pedro), who signed for the addressees. On January 19, 1956, the defendants filed a petition for relief from judgment, alleging they were not notified of the trial or the decision and that they had a meritorious defense. The trial court granted the petition and set aside the judgment. Delgado filed the present certiorari, arguing the petition for relief was filed beyond the six-month period from notice of the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the petition for relief from judgment, considering the timeliness of its filing and the validity of the service of the decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion and remanded the case for further determination. The service of the judgment was defective under Section 10, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, as there was no affidavit of the person mailing, no registry return card, and no certified copy of the postmaster’s notice to the addressees. The delivery to Isidoro Calapis did not follow the standard postal practice of written authorization from the addressees. The trial court was convinced by the defendants’ claim that they did not actually receive the decision. Regarding timeliness under Rule 38, the record did not show when judgment was entered. The petition for relief was filed on January 19, 1956, the same day defendants allegedly learned of the decision through a contempt motion. The Court instructed the lower court to grant relief and reinstate the case if no entry of judgment was made, or to deny the petition if entry was made six months or more before January 19, 1956.