G.R. No. L-15195; March 29, 1961
ANUNCIACION NARABAL DE NILO, GIL NILO, FELICISIMO NILO, FILEMON NILO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. HONORIO ROMERO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Br. Ill and the CITY of DAVAO, respondents.

FACTS

Fausto Nilo filed a complaint against the City of Davao, represented by the City Engineer, to recover payment for land used as a roadway. The City, through its Special Counsel, filed an answer interposing the defense of prescription but did so out of time. The trial court declared the City in default and struck its answer. The City’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and this order of default was not appealed. After Fausto Nilo’s death, his heirs were substituted as plaintiffs and filed an amended complaint, which was admitted by the court. The City’s Special Counsel was served with notice and did not object. After ex parte proceedings, the court rendered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. A writ of execution was subsequently issued.
The City of Davao then filed a petition for relief from judgment, alleging for the first time that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction because summons was served on the City Engineer instead of the City Mayor as required by the city charter. It also argued that the amended complaint was not properly served and that the Republic should have been impleaded. The trial court granted the petition, set aside the default judgment, and ordered a new trial, ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to improper service of summons.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the City’s petition for relief from judgment and setting aside the final and executory default judgment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. Jurisdiction over the City was acquired through its voluntary appearance. The City, represented by its City Attorney through a Special Counsel, actively participated by filing an answer, opposing the motion for default, and filing a motion for reconsideration. This constituted a general appearance, curing any defect in the service of summons. The City is now estopped from questioning jurisdiction after voluntarily submitting to the court’s authority. Furthermore, the default judgment had already become final and executory. The petition for relief was filed far beyond the reglementary period prescribed under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The City’s failure to timely assert its alleged defenses and its prolonged inaction constituted laches. The trial court thus lost jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, except for enforcement. The orders setting aside the judgment were annulled, and the execution of the default judgment was ordered reinstated.