G.R. No. L-7623; April 29, 1955
FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA, deceased, substituted by CORNELIO LADISLAO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BRUNA PESTAÑO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On February 26, 1951, plaintiff Felicidad Castañeda filed a complaint against defendant Bruna Pestaño in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to quiet title to and be declared absolute owner of a parcel of land. Summons was served on March 11, 1951, but the defendant failed to answer within the reglementary period. On May 2, 1951, the plaintiff moved to have the defendant declared in default. The next day, May 3, the defendant filed an answer. The lower court set a hearing on the admissibility of the late answer. The defendant alleged in a verified motion that her failure to answer on time was due to an illness that lasted 45 days, preventing her from consulting a lawyer until April 30, 1951. On October 3, 1951, the lower court denied the admission of the answer, declared the defendant in default, and ruled that the illness did not constitute excusable neglect. After ex parte proceedings, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff on January 7, 1952. The defendant’s motions to set aside the decision and for a new trial were denied. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court committed error in refusing to admit the defendant’s answer and in declaring her in default.

RULING

Yes, the lower court committed error. The defendant’s failure to file her answer on time was due to illness, which constitutes accident or excusable negligence that ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. The plaintiff was not particularly diligent, moving for default over a month after the answer period expired, and the defendant filed her answer the very next day after the motion, causing no prejudice to the plaintiff. The courts have discretion to admit an answer filed out of time depending on the circumstances to serve justice. Furthermore, the defendant appears to have a meritorious defense, as her answer is based on a deed of sale of the same land executed in her favor by the plaintiff’s brother, Francisco Castañeda, who admitted signing the deed. The oral partition between the plaintiff and her brother may not be binding on the defendant. Considering the illness, the meritorious defense, and the lack of prejudice or intent to delay, the lower court should have admitted the answer. The decision is set aside, and the lower court is ordered to admit the defendant’s answer and set the case for a new trial. Costs against the plaintiff-appellee.