Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 - Guyamin Vs Flores - General Principles

    Uploaded by

    Josh Palomera
    80 views2 pages
    1) Respondents filed a complaint against petitioners claiming ownership of a property that petitioners occupied for many years. Petitioners refused service of summons. 2) The RTC declared petitioners in default for failing to file an answer within the reglementary period. Petitioners appealed. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision, finding that service of summons was valid and that petitioners' answer was not timely filed. The Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5 - Guyamin vs Flores - General Principles.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Respondents filed a complaint against petitioners claiming ownership of a property that petitioners occupied for many years. Petitioners refused service of summons. 2) The RTC declared petitioners in default for failing to file an answer within the reglementary period. Petitioners appealed. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision, finding that service of summons was valid and that petitioners' answer was not timely filed. The Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    80 views2 pages

    5 - Guyamin Vs Flores - General Principles

    Uploaded by

    Josh Palomera
    1) Respondents filed a complaint against petitioners claiming ownership of a property that petitioners occupied for many years. Petitioners refused service of summons. 2) The RTC declared petitioners in default for failing to file an answer within the reglementary period. Petitioners appealed. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision, finding that service of summons was valid and that petitioners' answer was not timely filed. The Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS 2020 - 2021

    5 – GUYAMIN VS FLORES SUBSTANTIVE LAW VIS A VIS REMEDIAL


    LAW

    GENERAL PRINCIPLES

    Rodante Guyamin vs Jacinto Flores


    G.R. NO. 202189, April 25, 2017
    Improper service of summons
    Del Castillo, J

    This Court has time and again reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools aimed
    at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its frustration. A strict and rigid application of the
    rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to
    enhance fair tria.ls and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive
    rights of the other party

    FACTS:
    Respondents filed a complaint against the Petitioners claiming that they are the
    registered owners of a 984 square meter lot in General Trias, Cavite. Respondents further
    allege in the complaint that the petitioners are their relatives who occupies the property for
    many years due to the respondent’s predecessors and parents. Petitioners were reminded to
    vacate because respondents has the intention to sell the property however, they failed to
    vacate. Respondents made an effort to conciliate with the Petitioners but was not successful
    thus creating this instant complaint.
    Complaint was served on September 25, 2006 upon petitioners but refused to sign
    and acknowledge receipt. This prompted the respondents to file a motion to declare the
    defendants in default on the ground that petitioners failed to answer. Petitioner then filed
    their answer with a motion to dismiss but repondents filed in contrary of their answer. RTC
    ruled to declare the Petitioner in default because their answer was beyond the reglementary
    period on May 28, 2007
    Petitioners appealed to the CA to which it rendered a decision in favor of the
    Respondents and affirmed the decision of the RTC. Petitioner argued that there was no
    demand to vacate and lack of such renders the action against them premature

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not the RTC correctly declared Petitioners in default.

    HELD:

    Yes, the RTC was correct in declaring the Petitioners in default. ​In the case at
    hand, petitioner claimed that there was an improper service of summons but the Supreme
    Court stated that it was shown that the RTC and the respondents requested at different
    stages in the proceedings that the summons be served does not prove that service thereof
    made on September was invalid. The Supreme Court reiterated that the intention of the court
    and parties to serve the summons anew was unnecessary. The filing of the petitioner’s

    CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS (2020 - 2021)


    BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA
    CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS 2020 - 2021
    5 – GUYAMIN VS FLORES SUBSTANTIVE LAW VIS A VIS REMEDIAL
    LAW

    GENERAL PRINCIPLES

    answer prior to the motion created by the respondents and also their reply to the answer,
    does not make the petitioner’s answer filed on time

    CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS (2020 - 2021)


    BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA

    You might also like