CASE FACTS ISSUES/RELIEF COURT’S DECISION DOCTRINE

PRAYED FOR
[G.R. 1. On 18 October 2000, respondents filed a Petition for Injunction Petition for RTC: 1 In his book on remedial law, former Justice Florenz D.
No. 171827, b4 B-18 RTC-Tagayaty City Injunction prayed On 5 December 2001, the Regalado writes that failure to appear in hearings is not
September 17, *alleged that Monzon executed a PN IFO Sps. Perez for P600,000 the ff: RTC, citing the absence of a ground for the declaration of a defendant in default:
2008] w/ 5% int/month payable on/b4 12-28-1999 & secured by 300 sm 1 Monzon is liable petitioner and her counsel
– tagaytay city to Sps. Perez on said hearing date 2 Failure to file a responsive pleading within the
TERESITA * Monzon executed Absolute Deed of Sale P1,215,000 and despite due notice, granted reglementary period, and not failure to appear at the
MONZON, the remaining to an oral Motion by the hearing, is the sole ground for an order of default
*alleged that Monzon executed another PN IFO Sps. Relova for respondents by issuing an
PETITIONER, P200,000 w/ 5%/month due on/b4 12-31-99 & secured by 200 sm Sps. Relova (Rosario, et al. vs. Alonzo, et al., L-17320, June 29,
VS. SPS. JAMES P385,000.00 Order allowing the ex parte 1963),
* Monzn executed Cond. Deed of Sale presentation of evidence
& MARIA ROSA 2 Ordering Atty
NIEVES 2. on Oct. 3, 1999 Coastal Lending Corp.(P3,398,832.3) Luna BCOC to by respondents. 3 according to Justice Regalado, the effects of default
RELOVA AND extrajudicially foreclosed the entire 9,967 sm including the deliver the Judgement: Clerk of Court, are followed only in three instances: (1) when there is
SPS. portions mortgaged to respondents amount to the Atty. Ana Liza M. Luna, to an actual default for failure to file a responsive pleading;
BIENVENIDO & 3. The winning bidder ADDIO PROPERTIES INC paid respondents deliver unto [herein (2) failure to appear in the pre-trial conference; and (3)
EUFRACIA P5,001,127.00. respondents] the amount of refusal to comply with modes of discovery under the
3 Restraining Atty. P1,602,393.65 plus
PEREZ, 4. The remaining P1,02,393.65 in the custody of branch clerk of Luna from circumstance in Sec. 3(c), Rule 29.
RESPONDENTS whatever interest she may
court, Atty. Luna delivering any
. VS. ADDIO received if and when the
amount to said amount has been 4 We have in the past admonished trial judges against
PROPERTIES, Monzon pending issuing precipitate orders of default as these have the
Monzon’s side: deposited in any banking
INC., such delivery in effect of denying a litigant the chance to be heard, and
INTERVENOR 1 claimed that the Petition for Injunction should be dismissed for institution.
number (2). increase the burden of needless litigations in the
failure to state a cause of action. The Decision also
mentioned that the Order appellate courts where time is needed for more
2 Monzon likewise claimed that respondents could no longer ask
allowing the ex parte important or complicated cases. While there are
This is a Petition for the enforcement of the 2 PNS because she had already X
presentation of evidence by instances when a party may be properly defaulted,
for Review on performed her obligation to them by dacion en pago as evidenced
respondents was due to the these should be the exception rather than the rule, and
Certiorari by the Deed of Conditional Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale
continuous and incessant should be allowed only in clear cases of obstinate
assailing the DACION EN PAGO - mode of extinguishing an obligation whereby refusal or inordinate neglect to comply with the orders of
Decision[1] of the the debtor alienates in favor of the creditor property for the absences of petitioner and
counsel. the court
Court of Appeals satisfaction of monetary debt
dated 27 APPEAL:
September 2005 5 Mere non-appearance of defendants at an ordinary
* On 25 April 2002, Monzon filed a Notice of Appeal, claims that CA:
and its Resolution hearing and to adduce evidence does not constitute
the RTC gravely erred in rendering its Decision immediately after On 27 September 2005, the default, when they have already filed their answer to the
dated 7 March respondents presented their evidence ex parte without giving her Court of Appeals rendered
2006 in CA-G.R. complaint within the reglementary period. It is error to
a chance to present her evidence, thereby violating her right to the assailed Decision default a defendant after the answer had already been
CV No. 83507 due process of law dismissing the appeal.
affirming the filed. It should be borne in mind that the policy of the
* On 14 June 2002, Addio Properties, Inc. filed before the trial According to the Court of law is to have every litigant's case tried on the merits as
Decision of the Appeals, Monzon showed
Regional Trial court a Motion for Intervention much as possible; it is for this reason that judgments by
tepid interest in having the default are frowned upon
Court (RTC) of case resolved with
Tagaytay City, PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI: dispatch. She, thus, cannot
Branch 18. 6 Section 4, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court, which is the
1 Monzon claims anew that it was a violation of her right to due now complain that she was basis of respondent's alleged cause of action entitling
process of law for the RTC to render its Decision immediately denied due process when them to the residue of the amount paid in the
after respondents presented their evidence ex parte without giving she was given ample foreclosure sale, provides as follows:
her a chance to present her evidence. Monzon stresses that she opportunity to defend and
was never declared in default by the trial court. The trial court assert her interests in the
should have, thus, set the case for hearing for the reception of the case. The Court of Appeals
evidence of the defense. She claims that she never waived her reminded Monzon that the
right to present evidence. essence of due process is
2 Monzon argues that had she been given the opportunity to reasonable opportunity to
present her evidence, she would have proven that (to present be heard and submit
evidences in ANEXES) evidence in support of
3It can be seen that despite the fact that Monzon was not one's defense. What the
declared in default by the RTC, the RTC nevertheless applied the law proscribes is lack of
effects of a default order upon petitioner under Section 3, Rule 9 opportunity to be heard.
of the Rules of Court: Monzon's Motion for
Reconsideration was
SEC. 3. Default; declaration of.-- If the defending party fails to denied in a Resolution
answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon dated 7 March 2006.
motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party,
and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default.
Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting SC:
the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the 1 that the trial court had
court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. committed another error
Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court. which we should address to
put the remand in its proper
(a) Effect of order of default.—Aparty in default shall be entitled to perspective. We refer to
notice of subsequent proceedings but not to take part in the trial. Monzon's argument as
early as the Answer stage
that respondents' Petition
for Injunction had failed to
state a cause of action.
X 1 Decision of CA are
REVERSED AND SET
ASIDE
2 Petition for Injunction
ordered to be REMANDED
TO RTC for further
proceeding, respondents
should be ordered to
manifest WHETHER the
PETITION FOR
INJUNCTION should be
treated as a complaint for
the collection of a sum of
money
SEC. 4. Disposition of proceeds of sale.--The amount
realized from the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged
property shall, after deducting the costs of the sale, be
paid to the person foreclosing the mortgage, and when
there shall be any balance or residue, after paying off
the mortgage debt due, the same shall be paid to junior
encumbrancers in the order of their priority, to be
ascertained by the court, or if there be no such
encumbrancers or there be a balance or residue after
payment to them, then to the mortgagor or his duly
authorized agent, or to the person entitled to it.
However, Rule 68 governs the judicial foreclosure of
mortgages. Extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages,
which was what transpired in the case at bar, is
governed by Act No. 3135,[11] as amended by Act No.
4118,[12] Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7353, Section
18 of Republic Act No. 7906, and Section 47 of
Republic Act No. 8791. A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, issued on
14 December 1999, provides for the procedure to be
observed in the conduct of an extrajudicial foreclosure
sale. Thus, we clarified the different types of sales in
Supena v. Dela Rosa, [13] to wit:
7 Sec. 6. Redemption. In all cases in which an
extrajudicial sale is made under the special power
hereinbefore referred to, the debtor, his successors in
interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of
said debtor, or any person having a lien on the property
subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under
which the property is sold, may redeem the same at
any time within the term of one year from and after the
date of the sale; and such redemption shall be
governed by the provisions of sections four hundred
and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty- six,[14]
inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as
these are not inconsistent with this Act.