G.R. No. L-29445 August 15, 1988
BRIGIDA BARDE, JOSEFINA BARDE and VILMA BARDE, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. SOCORRO POSIQUIT, ASTERIO BARDE, LEONORA BARDE, JOSE BARDE, ALFREDO BARDE, DOLORES BARDE and VIOLETA BARDE, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for reconveyance and partition filed by Brigida Barde and the heirs of Rafael Barde (appellees) against the heirs of Pedro Barde (appellants) over a 173-square-meter residential lot in Ligao, Albay. The property was originally owned by the late spouses Claro Barde and Juana Cordial, who were survived by their children Brigida, Pedro, and Rafael. After Claro’s death, Pedro registered the property solely in his name via an affidavit of adjudication falsely claiming to be the only heir. Upon Pedro’s death, the appellees sought to recover their rightful shares. The appellants, in their answer, admitted the co-heirship but asserted defenses including Brigida’s alleged waiver of her share and a claim for reimbursement for expenses incurred in caring for Claro.
The trial court sent a notice of pre-trial only to the appellants’ counsel, which was returned unclaimed. No notice was sent to the appellant parties themselves. Due to the appellants’ and their counsel’s absence at the scheduled hearing, the court allowed the appellees to present evidence ex parte and subsequently rendered a decision ordering the partition of the property into three equal shares among the lines of Brigida, Rafael, and Pedro. The appellants, upon learning of the judgment, filed a petition for relief, arguing they were never notified of the pre-trial or trial, depriving them of the opportunity to present their defenses.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court’s proceedings and judgment are null and void for violation of the appellants’ right to due process, specifically due to lack of proper notice of the pre-trial conference to the parties themselves.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that the requirement of due process is fundamental. Citing jurisprudence, notably Pineda vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that notice of a pre-trial conference must be served not only upon counsel but also upon the party litigants. This rule ensures that parties are adequately informed and can participate in a critical stage of the proceedings aimed at simplifying issues and exploring amicable settlements. In this case, it was undisputed that the appellant parties themselves never received any notice of the pre-trial. Consequently, their failure to appear was justified and not attributable to fault or negligence.
The legal logic is clear: the absence of due notice to the parties rendered all subsequent proceedings, including the ex-parte presentation of evidence and the resulting judgment, null and void. A judgment void from the beginning for lack of due process is a legal nullity; it does not exist and cannot attain finality. Therefore, the petition for relief was a proper remedy, and its timeliness became immaterial, as a void judgment can be assailed at any time, either directly or collaterally. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the substantive merits of the appellants’ defenses (waiver, reimbursement) because the foundational procedural defect required a remand for a trial that comports with due process.