GR L 20086; (July, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20086 July 10, 1967
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, in its capacity as judicial administrator of the intestate estate of the late Macauyag (Moro), plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEGUNDO FERNANDEZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The Philippine National Bank, as judicial administrator, filed a complaint on September 13, 1958, to recover P10,000 from Segundo Fernandez based on a promissory note dated February 16, 1948. Fernandez moved to dismiss on October 1, 1958, on the ground of prescription, which the court denied on October 14, 1958. Fernandez received the denial order on October 29, 1958. On November 7, 1958, Fernandez filed an ex-parte motion for extension to file his answer, and filed his answer on November 12, 1958. The plaintiff had earlier moved to declare Fernandez in default on October 22, 1958. The court initially denied the motion for default on November 8, 1958, citing a lack of showing that Fernandez had received the order denying his motion to dismiss. The plaintiff filed an ex-parte motion for reconsideration on November 17, 1958. On November 19, 1958, the court granted the motion, reconsidered its November 8 order, and declared Fernandez in default, noting his answer was filed five days late. An ex-parte hearing was held, and judgment was rendered against Fernandez on January 22, 1959. Fernandez filed a verified petition for relief from judgment on April 7, 1959, which the trial court denied on April 11, 1959.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant-appellant’s petition for relief from judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the petition for relief. While the appellant was technically correct that he was entitled to notice of the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (filed November 17, 1958) because the court’s order of November 8, 1958, had not yet declared him in default, the Court found that granting relief would be futile. The appellant’s only relevant defense in his answer was prescription. However, his answer admitted receiving written extrajudicial demands for payment from the creditor before the ten-year prescriptive period expired. Under Article 1155 of the Civil Code, such written demand interrupts prescription. Therefore, the defense of prescription was untenable, and the appellant failed to show a meritorious defense, which is a requisite for relief from judgment.