8/9/2019 Kent v Micarez GR 185758 Case Digest

Kent V. Micarez

Facts

 This is petition for review on certiorari.

 This petition draws its origin from a complaint for recovery of real property and annulment of 
title led by petitioner, through her younger sister and authorized representative, Rosita
Micarez-Manalang (Manalang), before the RTC. etitioner is of !ilipino descent who became a
naturalized "merican citizen after marrying an "merican national in #$%#. &he is now a
permanent resident of the 'nited &tates of "merica (USA). The petitioner claimed that her
parents the herein respondents fraudulently and clandestinely transferred her property to
her brother, one of the respondents.

"ware that it was di(cult to register a real property under her name, she being married to
an "merican citizen, she purchased the sub)ect property and registered it under the name of 
her parents. " deed of absolute sale was e*ecuted between her parents and the owner of 
the said property. TCT was issued in the name of her parents. +ears later the petitioner
learned that the said property was sold by her parents to her brother. Considering that all
the respondents are residents of 'nited &tates summons was served upon them through
publication. The respondents authorized their counsel to le an answer and represent them
in pre-trial conference with power to enter into compromise agreement. The RTC ordered the
referral of the case to hilippine Mediation Center, however respondents failed to appear
during the schedule. The Court ordered the petitioner to present her evidence e*-parte.
owever, the counsel of the respondents claried that it was the counsel of the petitioner

who did not appear during the scheduled mediation proceedings, the respondentss counsel
further e*plained that their counsel had inadvertently a(*ed his signature on the space
provided for the counsel of the plainti in the mediation report.

Issue

/hether or not the dismissal of the case on the ground of the non-appearance of the
counsel of the petitioner during the mediation proceedings proper.

Held

 There is no clear demonstration that the absence of petitioners representative during

mediation proceedings on March #, 011% was intended to perpetuate delay in the litigation
of the case. 2either is it indicative of lac3 of interest on the part of petitioner to enter into a

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kent-v-micarez-gr-185758-case-digest 1/2
8/9/2019 Kent v Micarez GR 185758 Case Digest

possible amicable settlement of the case. 4ndeed, there are other available remedies to the
court a quo under ".M. 2o. 1#-#1-5-&C-467", apart from immediately ordering the
dismissal of the case. 4f Manalangs absence upset the intention of the court a quo to
promptly dispose the case, a mere censure or reprimand would have been su(cient for
petitioners representative and her counsel so as to be informed of the courts intolerance of
tardiness and la*ity in the observation of its order. 8y failing to do so and refusing to
resuscitate the case, the RTC impetuously deprived petitioner of the opportunity to recover
the land which she allegedly paid for.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kent-v-micarez-gr-185758-case-digest 2/2