GR L 15145; (June, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15145; June 30, 1961
AURELIA T. DE PINEDA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELINO V. VELOIRA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
This case originated from an action for forcible entry and illegal detainer filed by Aurelia T. de Pineda against Felino V. Veloira in the Municipal Court of Quezon City. The complaint alleged that on or about May 12, 1957, Veloira, by means of force, stealth, and strategy, unlawfully entered and took possession of a parcel of land belonging to Pineda in Barrio Tatalon, Quezon City, and refused to vacate despite demands. Veloira appealed the case to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Upon receiving notice of the docketing of the appeal on March 25, 1958, Veloira, instead of filing an answer, filed a motion to dismiss on March 27, 1958, arguing the action involved a question of ownership pending in another court and was thus premature. The lower court heard and denied the motion to dismiss on May 17, 1958, notifying the parties verbally in open court. A written copy of the denial order was mailed to Veloira only on June 25, 1958, and received by him on June 27, 1958.
ISSUE
The decisive issue is whether the reglementary period for Veloira to file his answer resumed on May 17, 1958, upon verbal notice in open court of the denial of his motion to dismiss, or on June 27, 1958, upon his actual receipt of a copy of the written order of denial.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant-appellant, Felino V. Veloira. The Court held that the running of the period to file an answer resumed only on June 27, 1958, the date Veloira actually received a copy of the order denying his motion to dismiss. The Court reiterated established jurisprudence that verbal notice in open court is insufficient to constitute valid service of an order denying a motion. Service must be made either personally or by mail as mandatorily required under Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, which prescribes a uniform procedure of public interest.
Applying the rules, Veloira’s filing of a motion to dismiss on March 27, 1958, interrupted the time to plead. From the receipt of the notice of docketing on March 25, he had 15 days to answer. With the motion filed, he had 13 days remaining from the denial of his motion within which to file his answer. Since valid service of the denial occurred only on June 27, 1958, his deadline to answer was July 10, 1958. His filing of an answer on June 30, 1958, was therefore well within the reglementary period. Consequently, the lower court erred in declaring him in default. The order of default was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.