5 - Guyamin Vs Flores - General Principles
5 - Guyamin Vs Flores - General Principles
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
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:
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
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