G.R. No. L-20751 July 30, 1965
Dominga Rebullo, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Narciso Palo, et al., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On September 13, 1958, plaintiff Dominga Rebullo filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against Narciso Palo and seven others in the Justice of the Peace (JP) Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. The case was heard on November 5, 1958, at which time counsel for the defendants made an oral Answer, as the written Answers mailed to the court and to plaintiff’s counsel had not yet been received. On November 12, 1958, the JP Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Twelve days later, on November 24, 1958, the JP Court received the written Answer mailed by defendants’ counsel. Defendants appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur on November 25, 1958. On January 31, 1959, within the reglementary period for filing an answer in the CFI, defendants’ counsel filed a Manifestation adopting and reproducing their written Answer filed with the JP Court as their Answer in the CFI. Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte motion to declare defendants in default for failure to file an answer in accordance with the Rules. On February 21, 1959, the CFI declared defendants in default and allowed plaintiff to present evidence ex parte. Defendants filed a motion to set aside the order of default and to admit their Answer, attaching an Affidavit of Merit and the written Answer filed in the JP Court (which was not included when the record was elevated to the CFI). The motion was denied on February 26, 1959, and the trial court proceeded to hear plaintiff’s evidence in the absence of defendants, rendering judgment the same day in favor of plaintiff, declaring her the owner with right to possession, ordering defendants to vacate, and awarding damages and attorney’s fees. On March 13, 1959, defendants filed a motion for relief from judgment and to set aside the order of default, alleging that their written Answer had been filed in the JP Court but was not attached to the records forwarded on appeal, and that they had a valid defense (defendant Narciso Palo claimed ownership and possession since time immemorial, supported by tax declarations and receipts). An Affidavit of Merit accompanied the motion. The trial court denied the motion on February 13, 1960, but ordered expunged the portion of the decision declaring plaintiff the owner. Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court as the issues raised are purely legal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur erred in not granting the motion for Relief from Judgment and not Setting Aside the Order of Default and not Admitting the Answer.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the appealed order and remanded the case to the CFI of Camarines Sur with instructions to admit the answer of defendants and proceed to trial. The Court found that the written Answer was in fact received by the JP Court on November 24, 1958, before the judgment was appealed to the CFI. Defendants had reason to believe their Answer was forwarded to the CFI when they manifested its adoption. The failure to include the Answer in the records forwarded was due to it being “mislaid” by the JP Court, constituting excusable negligence. Proper administration of justice required the trial court to set aside the order of default, admit the Answer, and allow defendants to present evidence, as proceeding in their absence amounted to a denial of their day in court. Relief under Rule 38 is warranted when failure to answer is due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The trial court itself indicated doubt about plaintiff’s ownership by expunging the declaration of ownership from its decision.