View full case

SPS. JUAN B. DULOS v. CA

FACTS:

Spouses Juan and Maria Dulos filed a special civil action of certiorari and prohibition to nullify the resolution of the respondent court denying their application for a writ of preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas. The private respondents, spouses Mariano and Anacoreta Nocom, sued the petitioners for forcible entry in the Metropolitan Trial Court. The petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of sale against the private respondents in the Regional Trial Court of Makati on the ground that there was a prejudicial question of ownership involved. However, the petitioners and their counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial conference of the forcible entry case, and they were declared in default. The Metropolitan Trial Court subsequently rendered a judgment in favor of the private respondents. The petitioners received a copy of the decision and filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Instead of appealing, the petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, which was dismissed. The Metropolitan Trial Court then issued a writ of demolition, prompting the petitioners to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the application for preliminary injunction. Hence, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioners were validly declared in default by the Metropolitan Trial Court.

  2. Whether the motion for the suspension of the proceedings in the forcible entry case should have been granted.

  3. Whether the filing of the action for nullification in the Regional Trial Court was a valid reason for the suspension of the hearing in the Metropolitan Trial Court.

  4. Whether the motion for reconsideration was defective.

RULING:

  1. The petitioners were validly declared in default by the Metropolitan Trial Court. The petitioners' representative failed to present the special power of attorney to the court and the petitioners did not take any action to have the order of default set aside.

  2. The motion for the suspension of the proceedings in the forcible entry case should not have been granted. The issue of ownership raised in the annulment case was not a prejudicial question in the ejectment case.

  3. The filing of the action for nullification in the Regional Trial Court was not a valid reason for the suspension of the hearing in the Metropolitan Trial Court. The grant of the motion for suspension or postponement was discretionary upon the court.

  4. The motion for reconsideration was defective because it was not verified and accompanied by an affidavit of merit.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A party may be declared in default for failure to appear at a pre-trial conference.

  • The issue of ownership raised in one case may not necessarily constitute a prejudicial question in another case.

  • The grant of a motion for suspension or postponement is discretionary upon the court.

  • A motion for reconsideration must be verified and accompanied by an affidavit of merit.