G.R. No. L-21057 June 30, 1970
RIZALINO SOSA, in his own behalf and in behalf of ANTONIA SOSA DE RIVERA and ABRAHAM SALVA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. DOMINGO YU CHU and YU CHU INVESTMENT CORPORATION, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellants Rizalino Sosa, Antonia Sosa de Rivera, and Abraham Salva filed a complaint to recover ownership and possession of one-half of a parcel of coconut land in Marinduque, alleging it was originally owned by the spouses Casto Sosa and Victorina Soleta de Sosa. Upon Victorina’s death in 1927, her one-half share was inherited by the appellants. In 1928, Casto Sosa executed a pacto de retro sale of the entire land to defendant Domingo Yu Chu, who later sold it to Yu Chu Investment Corporation. The appellants claimed both sales were made with knowledge of their pre-existing rights. The case was set for trial on December 20, 1962. Appellants’ counsel, Atty. Cecilio L. Pe, received the notice of hearing only on December 19, 1962. He sent a telegram to his client explaining he could not appear due to the short notice, but did not directly inform the court. When the case was called, a plaintiff appeared without counsel and, upon being asked, stated they could not present evidence without their lawyer. The defense moved for dismissal for non-suit, which the trial court granted. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration and subsequently a verified motion for new trial, supported by affidavits of merit from their counsel detailing the excusable negligence and the documentary evidence establishing their claim, including the conjugal nature of the property and the void nature of the sale as to Victorina’s share.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for non-suit and in denying the motion for new trial based on excusable negligence and the presentation of a meritorious cause of action.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found the appeal meritorious. The notice of trial was received by appellants’ counsel only one day before the hearing date, and considering his residence and law office were in Manila, it was nearly physically impossible for him to appear. The telegram sent to his client, though not directly to the court, was presented to the court and provided sufficient reason for the court to postpone the trial rather than dismiss the case. Furthermore, the motion for new trial was duly supported by an affidavit of merit which showed upon its face that appellants had indubitable documentary evidence to support their claim that the property was conjugal and that the sale of the entire parcel by Casto Sosa after Victorina’s death was void as to her share. The trial court therefore erred in denying the motion for new trial. The orders of dismissal and denial were set aside, and the case was remanded for trial on the merits.