G.R. No. L-57771 May 31, 1982
QUIRINO CAVILI, PRIMITIVO CAVILI, and PERFECTA CAVILI, petitioners, vs. HON. CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Quirino, Primitivo, and Perfecta Cavili were defendants in a partition case before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental. The trial court rendered a judgment by default against them. Petitioners later secured an order from Executive Judge Alejandro Boncaros dated April 23, 1980, granting a new trial. However, respondent Judge Cipriano Vamenta, Jr., in an order dated July 21, 1981, set aside the new trial order and directed the execution of the default judgment. The petitioners filed this certiorari petition to annul the July 21 order, revive the April 23 order granting a new trial, and enjoin further proceedings. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition but later reconsidered.
The core factual dispute centers on service of summons and the existence of a meritorious defense. The return of summons showed service only on defendant Perfecta Cavili in Negros Oriental, not on her brothers Quirino and Primitivo, who were residing in Negros Occidental. Perfecta’s counsel filed a motion for extension to answer for all defendants, relying on her assurance that her brothers would authorize his representation. This authorization never materialized, leading the counsel to withdraw his appearance. Petitioners also claimed a meritorious defense, attaching documents purporting to show the subject properties had already been partitioned by the parties’ predecessors-in-interest in 1937.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over defendants Quirino and Primitivo Cavili, and whether the order denying a new trial and executing the default judgment was issued with grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the July 21, 1981 order and reviving the April 23, 1980 order for a new trial. The legal logic is anchored on jurisdictional due process. Jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is acquired either by valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. The record conclusively showed summons was not served on Quirino and Primitivo Cavili. Their sister Perfecta’s counsel’s motion for extension, filed without their authority, could not constitute a voluntary appearance for them. The counsel’s subsequent withdrawal precisely because he lacked authority underscores this point.
Furthermore, a later motion for new trial filed by a different counsel, which was predicated on the lack of summons, cannot be construed as a waiver of the jurisdictional defect. Its purpose was to cure the lack of due process, not to submit to the court’s jurisdiction. Since the court never acquired jurisdiction over Quirino and Primitivo, the default judgment against them was void. The prima facie credibility of their defense, evidenced by documents suggesting a prior partition, reinforced the necessity of a trial on the merits. The Supreme Court held that the more prudent course was to afford the petitioners their day in court to ventilate their defense fully, thereby upholding fundamental procedural due process.