G.R. No. L-12960; January 31, 1962
CIRILO VENTURA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ANASTACIA BAYSA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, children of Juana Claridad, filed an action for partition, accounting, and damages against the defendants, the wife, children, and grandchildren of Isidro Claridad, concerning two parcels of land in Paniqui, Tarlac. The plaintiffs alleged that both groups inherited the lands from their common grandfather, Agaton Claridad, and were thus co-owners. The defendants countered that Isidro Claridad was the true owner, having registered the lands in his father’s name only for sentimental reasons, and asserted that the plaintiffs’ right had prescribed.
The case experienced significant procedural delays. After issues were joined, a hearing was set for March 12, 1951, where the parties announced a potential amicable settlement and were given time to formalize it. No settlement was filed. The case was reset for November 19, 1951, but the hearing was postponed due to lack of proper notice to the defendants’ counsel. Thereafter, the record showed no further action taken by the plaintiffs to set the case for hearing for over four years.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the case motu proprio for the plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time.

RULING

Yes, the trial court acted properly in dismissing the case. The legal logic is grounded on Section 3, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court, which permits a court to dismiss an action on its own motion when the plaintiff fails to prosecute it for an unreasonable length of time. The Supreme Court found that a lapse of more than four years from the last scheduled hearing, without any initiative from the plaintiffs to revive the proceedings, constituted an unreasonable delay. This inaction demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the case to its final termination.
The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ excuse that they relied on the clerk of court to calendar the case. While the clerk has a duty to schedule hearings, the primary responsibility to diligently prosecute a case rests with the plaintiff. Plaintiffs cannot remain passive and must call the court’s attention to calendar delays. The dismissal under this rule generally operates as an adjudication on the merits. However, the Supreme Court modified the trial court’s order. Considering that the lands were registered under Torrens titles in the name of the common ancestor and the plaintiffs’ claim appeared meritorious, the Court ruled that the dismissal should be without prejudice to prevent a substantive right from being defeated by a procedural technicality. Thus, the plaintiffs were granted another opportunity to pursue their action.