G.R. No. L-23424 January 31, 1968
LOURDES ARCUINO, ELEUTERIA LAUDE, FLORENCIA PATOMBON and ANGELITA PATOMBON, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. RUFINA APARIS and CASIANO PURAY, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On May 26, 1964, plaintiffs Lourdes Arcuino, Eleuteria Laude, Florencia Patombon, and Angelita Patombon filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Leyte for recovery of possession, damages, and legal redemption. They claimed to be co-owners of about 13/24 of a residential lot (Lot No. 355, Ormoc City), covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 13672. They alleged that defendant spouses Casiano Puray and Rufina Aparis (the Purays) took possession of the lot in 1946, unlawfully excluding them, and refused to return their shares despite demands. Plaintiffs further claimed that upon learning on April 29, 1964, that some co-owners had sold their shares to the Purays, they offered to redeem those shares, but the Purays rejected the offer.
The Purays, in their answer, denied plaintiffs’ ownership share, asserting they acquired the lot in good faith in 1946 from Marciano Melgar and Pilar Melgar (who had purchased it in 1938 from the registered owners). They contended plaintiffs’ action was barred by the statute of limitations and laches, and filed a counterclaim for damages.
After plaintiffs filed their answer to the counterclaim, the lower court set the case for pre-trial on June 17, 1964. Neither plaintiffs nor their counsel appeared. Upon motion of the Purays’ counsel, the court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Atty. Bruno A. Villamor, immediately informed the court that his co-counsel, Atty. Vicente Rodriguez (who was handling the case), could not attend as he was in Mindanao, and requested postponement, which was denied. Atty. Villamor filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining that he received the pre-trial notice on June 10, 1964, while handling another case, placed it in his case envelope, forgot to inform Atty. Rodriguez, and that Atty. Rodriguez mistakenly noted the pre-trial date as June 19, 1964. The motion was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case due to plaintiffs’ and their counsel’s failure to appear at the pre-trial and in denying the motion for reconsideration.

RULING

No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, holding that:
1. The explanation for non-appearance was unsatisfactory. Atty. Rodriguez had noted the pre-trial on his office calendar, indicating he was aware of it, albeit with a mistaken date. Atty. Villamor, as co-counsel, could and should have appeared in his associate’s absence.
2. The lower court had authority to dismiss the case for failure to appear at pre-trial after due notice, and the decision to maintain or reconsider such dismissal rests on the trial judge’s sound discretion.
3. Plaintiffs’ claim faced insurmountable obstacles. The Purays had been in adverse possession since 1946 (about 18 years), and with their predecessors’ possession since 1938, totaling 26 years. While registered land under the Torrens system may not be acquired by prescription, plaintiffs were not registered owners but claimed title by succession. Regardless, plaintiffs were guilty of laches for their long inaction. Thus, reinstating the case would be futile. Costs were awarded against plaintiffs.