Hilario Moncado v. People’s Court
G.R. No. L-824, January 14, 1948
FACTS: In an ejectment case filed before the justice of the peace court of Guijulngan, Negros Oriental, after trial in the absence of the defendants, rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff. The Court of First Instance then sent notice by registered mail posted on September 8, 1939 the notice of receipt of appealed case and the period for pleading. Defendants were informed of such mail by the postmaster but the same was not claimed, CFI of Negros Oriental, upon motion of plaintiff, ordered defendants to vacate the land and to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiff the sum of PHP 18 as damages, plus costs. Defendant’s appealed the decision claiming that their failure to get notice from post office was due to ignorance and that they were not served with copy of plaintiff’s motion for default.
CFI denied defendant’s motion on June 19, 1940.
ISSUE: Was defendant’s failure to get notice valid and excusable?
RULING: No, the Court ruled that in the first place, defendant’s are not entitled to a service of copy of the motion that they are in default except when they file a motion to set aside the order of default, in which event they are entitled to notice of all further proceedings (Rule 27, Section 9, Rules of Court). Second, failure to get notice was not excusable neglect as claimed by defendants. Indeed, a notice, is deemed served if delivered by registered mail and claimed within 5 days from first notice of postmaster (Rule 27, Section 8, Rules of Court).
Appealed order affirmed.