FARIDA YAP BITTE AND HEIRS OF BENJAMIN BITTE vs.

SPOUSES FRED AND ROSA ELSA SERRANO

JONAS G.R. No. 212256 dated 09 December 2015 Mendoza, J.: TOPIC: Party declared in default’s right to
appeal FACTS: In 1985, Rosa Elsa Jonas authorized her mother Andrea Serrano thru SPA, to sell a property
located in Davao City. The property was mortgaged to Mindanao Development Bank (MDB). In 1996, Cipriano
Serrano (brother of Elsa Jonas, son of Andrea) offered to Spouses Bitte. In the same year, Jonas revoked the
SPA. After the final negotiation, Elsa Jonas withdrew from the transaction. Spouses Bitte filed a Complaint for
Specific Performance against Jonas, Andrea and Cirpriano to transfer the title over the property. In 1998, while
the case is pending, Andrea executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of Spouses Bitte. MDB foreclosed the
property for failure to pay the loan. Spouses Bitte were able to redeem the property, then sold the same to
Spouses Yap. In 1999, Spouses Jonas also filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale against
Spouses Bitte. The two cases were consolidated in 2001. Spouses Bitte failed to attend the pre-trial. The
counsel for Spouses Bitte withdrew and a new one entered his appearance and filed a verified motion for
reconsideration. Spouses Bitte once again failed to appear in the pre-trial and were, thus, declared nonsuited.
Jonas then presented her evidence ex parte. RTC ruled that the sale was valid and directed the Spouses Bitte
to pay the balance. The CA reversed the decision, and rendered the deed of sale null and void. Spouses Jonas
called the attention of the Court and contended that since the RTC has declared the Spouses Bitte in default,
they have already lost the legal personality to resort to this petition before this Court. ISSUE/S: Whether or not
the Spouses Bitte have already lost the legal personality to resort to this petition before this Court, as they were
declared in default by the RTC. RULING: NO. Spouses Jonas claim that the door to any reliefs for Spouses
Bitte, be it through motion for reconsideration or this subject petition, was closed by the finality and immutability
of the RTC declaration of their default. In other words, it is their stand that the petitioners do not have the right
to obtain recourse from this Court. Spouses Jonas are mistaken. The rule is that “right to appeal from the
judgment by default is not lost and can be done on grounds that the amount of judgment is excessive or is
different in kind from that prayed for, or that the plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of his complaint,
or that the decision is contrary to law”. If a party who has been declared in default on the basis of the decision
having been issued against the evidence or the law, that person cannot be denied the remedy and opportunity
to assail the judgment in the appellate court. Despite being burdened by the circumstances of default, the
petitioners may still use all other remedies available to question not only the judgment of default but also the
judgment on appeal before this Court. Those remedies necessarily include an appeal by certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court.