Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16954 April 25, 1962

ARMINIO RIVERA, in his capacity As Administrator of the Intestate Estate of

the deceased RAFAEL LITAM, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LITAM and COMPANY, INC., GREGORIO DY TAM, WILLIAM TAM, LUIS LITAM,
LI HONG HAP and HENRY LITAM, defendants-appellants.

De los Santos and De los Santos for plaintiff-appellee.

Benjamin H. Aquino, Arturo C. Mojica and Albert C. Mendoza for defendants-
appellants.

LABRADOR, J.:

Arminio Rivera brought this action in his capacity a administrator of the estate
of the deceased Rafael Litam to recover from the defendants some 54/204
shares of stock belonging to the deceased in the Li Tam & Co., Inc., or their
value, alleging that the said shares have been fraudulently transferred by the
defendants, and to render an accounting of the income or dividends that have
accrue to said shares of stock, with attorneys' fees and costs.

The material allegations of the complaint are That (1) Rafael Litam died
intestate in Manila on January 1, 1951 and plaintiff was appointed
administrator of his estate; (2) the wife of Rafael Litam, Marcosa Rivera, filed a
claim against his estate for the sum of P252,658.33 which the Court of First
Instance approved; (3) believing that the properties of the deceased were in the
possession of Li Tim & Co., Inc., the administrator filed a motion in the probate
court demanding that the President and Manager, Mr Lee Chu, be required to
render an account of the income of the 54/204 shares of the deceased in said
company, but said President and Manager and Gregorio Dy Tam opposed the
motion, claiming that the entire assets or properties of the deceased were
transferred on January 25, 1950 to William Litam, Luis Litam, Henry Litam
and Li Hong Hap, and to show such transfer said defendants furnished
photostat copies of the said shares of stock and the transfer thereof; (4) said
transfers are fictitious, unsupported by any adequate or valuable
consideration, and fraudulent, and defendants unlawfully and fraudulently
conspired to bring about the said transfers; said transfers had been made to
enrich themselves to the prejudice of others; said transfers were made in fraud
of creditors; (5) the value of such shares is at least P300,000; and the probate
court, upon motion of administrator, has authorized him to file the suit against
the defendants.

All the defendants filed a common answer which their attorneys, Sycip, Salazar,
et al., presented. In said answer the defendant corporation alleged that it has
no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of all the
allegations and denied the same.
The other defendants also denied the material allegations of the complaint and
alleged that the allegations of the complaint are conclusions of law; that the
transfers of the shares of stock to defendants are null and void. They also
denied the authority of the plaintiff to file the action; and as affirmative
defenses they alleged that the shares of stock in question were disposed of by
the intestate for good, sufficient and adequate consideration without intent of
committing fraud; that the corporation in which Rafael Litam had shares of
stock is no longer existing and the present corporation, Li Tam & Company,
Inc., is formed by different incorporations; that the defendant corporation does
not have in its possession any of the properties belonging to the intestate estate
of Rafael Litam; and that the complaint states no cause of action against the
individual defendants, said defendants not having received any sum from the
deceased on January 25, 1950.

The case was set for hearing on April 2, 1956 but the trial had to be postponed
because two cases involving the same parties, G.R. No. L-7644 and L-7645,
were still pending before the Supreme Court. On March 31, 1957 attorney for
the plaintiff informed the court that the said cases had already been decided so
he prayed that the case be set for hearing anew in June 1957; this was done
but the case was again postponed to August 5, 1957. Various other
postponements took place until September 24, 1957 when the attorneys for the
defendants informed the court that they were withdrawing from the case but
that they had not as yet secured the conformity of their clients to their
withdrawal. The court again postponed the case to November 22, 1957
notifying the parties of the postponement. When the case was called for
hearing on November 22, 1957, all the defendants failed to show up; so the
court authorized the clerk of court to hear the evidence for plaintiff without the
presence of the defendants. The case, however, was actually heard, without the
presence of defendants, only on February 6 and 19, 1959.

On July 16, 1959 after the plaintiff had submitted his memorandum, the court
rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds the complaint to be substantiated

by the evidence on record and judgment is hereby rendered thus:

(1) The transfer on June 25, 1950 of the certificates of stock of Rafael Litam to
wit: Nos. V-2, V-3, V-9, V-10, V-11, V-12, V-13, V-14, all of Li Tam & Co., Inc.,
in favor of the respective transferees is hereby declared null and void and of no
legal effect and the estate of Rafael Litam remains the owner or the above
mentioned certificates of stock;

(2) Because of the dissolution of Li Tam & Co., Inc. in 1952, the successor
defendant corporation is hereby directed either to cause the issuance in favor
of the estate of Rafael Litam of the equivalent number of its shares of capital
stock or should that be not possible for one reason or another, to pay to said
estate, jointly and severally with the other defendants, the value of said 54/204
shares of stock which is hereby fixed at P300,000.; and

(3) All the defendants are ordered to pay jointly and severally the herein
plaintiff the sum of P6,000.00 as attorney' fees and expenses of litigation. (pp.
95-96, R.O.A.)
Against the above judgment the defendants have prosecuted this appeal.

Some antecedent facts constituting the background is necessary to an

understanding of the evidence on the main issue, namely, the validity of the
transfer of the 54/20 shares of the deceased Rafael Litam to the defendants
William, Henry, and Luis Litam and Li Hong Hap.

Rafael Litam was married to Marcosa Rivera on June 10, 1922. He died on
January 10, 1950 while a resident of Hulong Duhat, Malabon, Rizal. Upon his
death intestate proceedings were instituted for the settlement of his estate by
Gregorio Dy Tam, who alleged that he and the others namely, William, Henry,
and Luis Litam and Li Hong Hap are his (of Rafael Litam) children by a Chinese
wife, with whom he had contracted marriage in China in 1911. In the petition
Gregorio Dy Tam was proposed as administrator. The wife of the deceased,
Marcosa Rivera, proposed Arminio Rivera, a nephew. This proposal was
opposed by the petitioner Gregorio Dy Tam on the ground that Marcosa Rivera
had a claim against the intestate. The lower court approved the appointment of
Arminio Rivera, and the case having come to this Court in G.R. No. L-6297, We
held that the appointment was proper as the administrator would have the
duty of protecting the estate against the pretending heirs. (See Exhibit "E").

During the pendency of the intestate proceedings Marcosa Rivera, incompetent,

filed a claim for a total sum of P252,658.33 against the intestate. (Exhibit "F")
The claim was approved upon the strength of a deed dated February 24, 1946
where the deceased Rafael Litam acknowledged a new indebtedness of
P197,000.00 plus interest of P62,000 for the previous year (Exhibit "F-2"). The
order was appealed to this Court in G.R. No. L-7846, but We dismissed the
appeal for the reason that in two cases (G.R. Nos. L-7644-45) We had held that
when Rafael Litam was married to Marcosa Rivera, Rafael was not married to
the mother of Gregorio Dy Tam and his four brothers and three sisters. (Exh.
"H") .

On November 15, 1944 Arminio Rivera, administrator of the intestate, moved

the court to require the president and manager of Li Tam & Company, Inc., to
give an account of the Income derived from the 54/204 shares of stock of the
intestate (Exhibit "I"). In answer Lee Chu alleged that at the time of his death,
Rafael Litam was no longer a stockholder, having transferred his shares to
various persons (Exhibit "J"). Upon the filing of this answer the probate court
authorized the filing of this action against Henry Litam, Li Hong Hap, Luis
Litam and William Litam and others (Exhibit "K").

The photostat copies of the original shares of stock (Exhibits L, L-1 to L-7) of
Rafael Litam show the following transfers of the stock: .

6 shares to Luis Litam

6 shares to Luis Litam
6 shares to Luis Litam
4 shares to Luis Litam 2 to William Litam
1 shares to Li Hong Hap
6 shares to William Litam
6 shares to William Litam
8 shares to William Litam
9 shares to Henry Litam (Exhs. "L, L-1, to L-7").
In Civil Case No. 2071 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Gregorio Dy Tam,
sought to recover certain properties in Navotas, Rizal, Malabon, Rizal and in
Obando, Bulacan, alleging that Rafael Litam was survived by Li Hong Hap, Li
Ko, Gregorio Dy Tam, Henry Litam, Beatriz Lee Tam, Elsa Lee Tam, William
Litam and Luis Litam by a marriage in China in 1911 with Sia Khin. The Court
of First Instance dismissed the action and declared the properties to be
exclusive, separate paraphernal properties of Marcosa Rivera (Exhibit "M").
Upon appeal to Us, in G.R. No. L-7644, We affirmed the decision with a slight
modification. (Exhibit "N").

The evidence for plaintiff consists of the testimony of himself and various
documents. The gist of the testimony is as follows: Rafael Litam died on
January 10, 1951, and his wife, on September 12, 1957. During his lifetime,
Rafael Litam was President and General Manager of the Li Tam and Company,
Inc., and had 54/204 shares therein; that upon plaintiff's qualification as
administrator he inspected the properties of the deceased in the Bicol Region
and during the inspection he met defendant Henry Litam at Casiguran,
Sorsogon and Henry told him that the properties were still intact in different
places. He further testified that he met the defendants several times in 1948 in
their office at 928 San Fernando, San Nicolas, Manila and he was told that
Rafael Litam owned shares in the company valued at P300,000; that when he
went to collect the debt of Rafael Litam to his aunt, he was told not to worry as
they did not claim the shares as their own. These facts were not contradicted is
defendants did not appear in person or by attorney on the dates of the trial.

The main basis of the action are two documents, identified at the trial as
Exhibits "O" and "P". They are as follows: .

KASULATAN SA PAGKAKAUTANG .

ALAMIN NG LAHAT NA MAKABABASA NITO:

Na akong si RAFAEL LITAM, ciudadano chino, may sapat na gulang, may

asawa at naninirahan sa Malabon, Rizal, Pilipinas, ay malaya at kusang loob
na .

NAGSASAYSAY NG SUMUSUNOD:

1. Na bago magsiklab ang katatapos na digmaan sa Pacifico, ako may

pagkakautang sa aking asawang si MARCOSA RIVERA ng halagang ISANG
DAAN AT TATLONGPUT LIMANG LIBONG PISO (P135,000.00), kuwaltang
pilipino, na tinanggap ko ng boong kasiyahang loob sa nasabi kong asawa, at
siya kong ginamit sa aking negocio. Ang nasabing halaga ay salaping sarili ng
aking asawa, at hanggang sa sandaling ito ay hindi ko pa nababayaran sa
kanya kahi't bahagi nito.

2. Na noong ika 4 ng Enero ng taong ito, sa hangad kong maitayong muli

ang aking negocio na nasira ng digmaan, ay napangahasan kong galawin at
kunin sa kinatataguan ang halaga pang ANIMNAPU'T DALAWANG LIBONG
PISO (P62,000.00), kuwaltang pilipino, na salapi ding sarili ng aking asawang
si Marcosa Rivera, kaya't sa ngayon ako ay may pagkakautang sa kanya ng
halagang ISANG DAAN AT SIYAMNAPU'T PITONG LIBONG PISO (P197,000.00)
kuwaltang pilipino, at sa pamamagitan nito ay ipinangangako kong babayaran
sa kanya, u orden, ang nasabing halaga pati ng pakinabang na 10% isang taon
ng huling halagang P62,000.00, sa ganitong paraan: .

Sa dati kong utang na P135,000.00 ako ay maghuhulog ng halagang ISANG

LIBONG PISO (P1,000.00) isang buwan simula sa buwan ng Marzo, 1946,
hanggang sa buwan ng Disyembre, 1947; at LIMANG LIBONG PISO (P5,000.00)
isang buwan simula sa buwan ng Enero, 1948, hanggang sa matapusan ang
nasabing halaga; .

Sa huling halagang P62,000.00 ako ay maghuhulog ng P31,000.00 sa buwan

ng Disyembre, 1946, o bago dumating ang nasabing petsa, at P31,000.00 sa
buwan ng Disyembre, 1947 o bago dumating ang nasabing petsa, at ang
pakinabang na 10% isang taon ay nasabing halagang P62,000.00 ay
huhulugan ko buwan-buwan por mensualidades vencidos at ang unang hulog
ay gagampanan ko sa buwan ng Marzo, 1946.1wph1.t

3. Kung sakaling hindi ko matupad ang alin man sa mga condiciones na

nasaad sa kasulatang ito, ang kabuoan ng aking pagkakautang ay magiging
vencido at maaaring singilin lahat ng may hawak ng kasulatang ito.

4. Bilang garantia ng aking pagkakautang na ito ay ipinangangako kong sa

loob ng lalong madaling panahon ay gagawa ako ng isang escritura de hipoteca
ng lahat ng aking mga propiedades sa Sorsogon favor sa aking asawang
Marcosa Rivera.

SA KATUNAYAN NG LAHAT NG ITO, ako ay lumagda sa ibaba nito, dito sa

Malabon, Rizal, Pilipinas, ngayong ika 24 ng Febrero, 1946.

(Sgd.) Rafael Litam

RAFAEL LITAM

NILAGDAAN SA HARAP NI: .

MACARIO B. ASISTIO ILLEGIBLE.

TAFOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA

COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS) S. S.
PROVINCIA DE RIZAL

En el Municipio de Malabon, Provincia de Rizal, Filipinas, hoy a 25 de Febrero

de 1946, A. D. comparecio personalmente anmi el Sr. Rafael Litam, con su
certificado de residencia No. A-268183, expedido en Malabon, Rizal, et 25 de
Febrero de 1946, de quien hoy fe que conozco por ser la misma persona que
otorgo el preinserto documento y que ratifico haberlo otorgado libre y
espontancamente, el cual se compone de dos paginas, inclusive la que contiine
esta ratificacion, la segunda de las cual-es ha sido firmada en el margen
izquierdo por el otorgante y sus testigos, y sellada con mi timbre notarial.

Anti mi,
(Sgd.) ILLEGIBLE.
NOTARIO PUBLICO
Mi commission expira
el 31 de Dic., 1946 .

Asiento No. 6; Pag. No. 2; Libro

II; Serie de 1946." (Exhibit "O") .

Exhibit "P" .

Ang kabu-uan nang kualtang natangap ko na galing sa aking asawang si

Marcosa Rivera simula nang ako ay pumasok sa Ospital ay LABING
DALAWANG LIBONG PISO (P12,600.00).

(Sgd.) Rafael Litam

RAFAEL LITAM

Noviembre 28, 1950.

Manila.

The court below found that the transfer of the shares of stock to defendants
was simulated, fictitious and without consideration; that it was in fraud of
creditors and the conduct of the defendants at the time the transfer of the
properties of the deceased was being made, renders the alleged sale doubtful.
The peculiar circumstances, such as the fact that defendants claimed to be
children of the deceased, and claimed various real properties as belonging to
Rafael Litam when as a matter of fact they were the exclusive paraphernal
properties of his wife both of which facts were found in the decisions of the
Supreme Court reveal why the transfer of the shares was disclosed only in
the year 1954, when as a matter of fact the transfers took place purportedly at
the same time on July 25, 1950.

The above findings as to the existence of fraud, the lack of consideration, etc.,
are disputed by the appellants in their first assignment of error, it being
contended by them that the premises are insufficient to prove lack of a
consideration, as defendants had no duty to make public the transfer and
disclose the consideration therefor, etc. Answering the above contention, we
state that defendants did not prove that they ever paid any price or
consideration for the transfer, or that they had the means to pay for the price,
or that the deceased had ever received any payment for the transfer, as it was
shown that he was so short of funds soon after the date of the supposed
transfer that he had to borrow the sum of P12,000.00 from his wife on
November 28, 1950 (Exhibit "P"). When in 1949 and 1950 plaintiff Rivera saw
the defendants William Litam, Luis Litam and Henry Litam, these defendants
admitted that Rafael Litam owned shares in the corporation valued at
P300,000 (t.s.n., p. 23). And even after the death of Rafael Litam, in the year
1952, when plaintiff went to the Bicol region to check up the properties left by
the intestate for the purpose of preparing the inventory thereof, he met Henry
Litam in Casiguran, Sorsogon. Henry Litam then did not say that the
properties did not belong to the deceased (t.s.n., p. 32), when the supposed
endorsement of the shares bears date of July 25, 1950. In the year 1952,
before plaintiff filed the inventory, he took up with Lee Chu the matter of the
interest of Rafael Litam in the corporation, Li Tam and Company, Inc. Lee Chu,
who was then president, admitted that the deceased Rafael Litam owned 54
shares of the entire stock (t.s.n., p. 33). Our conclusion from all the above facts
and from these admissions in 1952 of Lee Chu, then president of Li Tam and
Company, Inc., and of Henry Litam, one of the defendants, is that in 1952 the
shares were still owned by Rafael Litam and had not yet been endorsed or
transferred on the books of the corporation to the defendants.

Our examination of the certificates of stock shows that the deceased Rafael
Litam's signatures to the indorsement were authentic, but the dates of
indorsement and the names are not; so we believe, Rafael must have signed the
indorsement not on January 25, 1950 but before, and the shares actually
transferred in the books already after 1952. From these circumstances we
conclude that the certificates of stock must have been delivered, already signed
by the deceased, before his death, in secret, to his alleged children, the
defendants herein, who, after Rafael Litam's death in January 1951, wrote
their names on the shares as endorsees, in secret also. Their purpose is
evident so that upon Rafael's death his Filipino wife would not be able to
claim the shares of stock as part of Rafael's assets and same (shares) would not
be subject to the payment of his debts. These debts at the time of his death in
1950 reached more than P250,000. The fact that the real properties,
presumably of the deceased, in the Bicol region were also in the name of the
corporation, not in Rafael's own, must have been part of the scheme to insure
that his (the deceased) assets would pass to his children, the defendants, free
from the claims of his wife.

It appears, therefore, that the deceased Rafael Litam had been getting money
from his Filipina wife (to distinguish her from the Chinese wife by whom he had
his children, the defendants bearing his name), borrowing from her big sums
which he put in the company, Li Tam and Company, Inc., in shares of stock of
this corporation, later endorsing the certificates evidencing transfer thereof,
without date, and delivering the shares to his children, also investing the funds
of the company, in the purchase of real estate also in the name of the
corporation, thus depriving his wife, from whom the money came, of the legal
means to get back the money loaned. And to complete the fraudulent scheme
and in order to make the properties more invulnerable to the claims of Rafael
Litam's creditors, the defendants for no apparent reason, dissolved the old
corporation and formed the new Li Tam and Company, Inc., on October 3,
1952, the defendants, children of the deceased being the new stockholders (see
Exhibit "X"). The fact that in the new corporation the respective shares of the
incorporators do not exactly coincide with the shares each had received from
Rafael Litam, according to the endorsements of the original shares, prove that
Rafael Litam's children actually divided his assets among themselves, not
according to the endorsements of the shares.

The fraudulent character of the transfer of all his shares of stock by Rafael
Litam is clearly inferable from the following circumstances: namely, the
transferees are his own children; no consideration or price was given or
received for the transfer; the shares of stock were the only properties of Rafael
Litam; there was no apparent need for him to dispose of all of them as the
corporation was the only source of business that he had; and he had an
outstanding indebtedness of more than P250,000 with his wife with whom he
had no issue. It has been said that "the fertility of man's invention in devising
new schemes of fraud is so great that courts have declined to define it,
reserving to themselves the liberty to deal with it under whatever form it may
present itself." In the case at bar the fraudulent scheme is evidenced by a
series of related acts committed one after another, silently, quietly and
surreptitiously. Our jurisprudence abounds with cases where fraud had been
held to exist but we have found none in which all the circumstances above
indicated are present, the circumstances being varied as the men who schemed
the fraud in each case. The nearest to the case at bar is Ayles vs. Reyes and
Reyes, 18 Phil. 243, where the Supreme Court held that fraud was proved
where it was shown that the debtor went into insolvency and, conniving with
his parents, sold part of his property to them and the sales were simulated,
and only for the purpose of frustrating liabilities contracted.

One last point needs consideration, and this is the claim made by the
defendant corporation that its obligation to transfer the shares of stock to the
estate could not be inferred from the Articles of Incorporation (Exhibit "X"),
because the two corporations are distinct and separate, and under the
authorities cited by it, even if the new succeeded the old corporation. This
claim would have been correct had not the defendant corporation expressly
acquired the assets and properties of the old Li Tam and Company, Inc., and
assumed its obligations and liabilities in the articles of incorporation. (Exh. "X",
Par. "d"). The trial court, therefore, correctly held defendant corporation liable
to the estate for the equivalent number of shares of stock, otherwise, said
corporation would be enriching itself at the expense of the estate.

In view of the fraud and all the foregoing, the transfer of the shares must be
declared null and void and of no effect (Article 1409, Civil Code), and the
transferees, as well as the corporation which consented to the transfer, must all
be held liable for the return of the properties, that the shares represented, or
their values (Article 1352, Civil Code).

Another objection to the judgment raised by the appellants is that they should
not be required to pay the amount of P300,000 as well as the attorney's fees.
The judgment for P300,000 is an alternative relief afforded the plaintiff in case
the shares of stock can not be recovered. Attorney's fees should be awarded
because the plaintiff has been forced to various litigations in order to enforce
the payment of plaintiffs claim.

Art. 1388. Whoever acquires in bad faith the things alienated in fraud of
creditors, shall indemnify the latter for damages suffered by them on account
of the alienation, whenever, due to any cause, it should be impossible for him
to return them." (Civil Code of the Philippines).

Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of
fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor
thereof, are liable for damages.

Liability for Non-Performance. In general, every debtor who fails in the

performance of his obligations is bound to indemnify for the losses and
damages caused thereby. (De la Cruz vs. Seminary of Manila, 18 Phil. 330;
Municipality of Moncada v. Cajuigan, 21 Phil. 184; De la Cavada vs. Diaz, 37
Phil. 982; Maluenda v. Enriquez, 46 Phil. 916; Pampanga Sugar Mills v. Chong,
49 Phil. 1003; Pando v. Gimenez; 54 Phil. 459; Acme Films v. Theaters Supply,
63 Phil. 657). Tolentino's The New Civil Code Annotated, p. 314).

Therefore the damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the fraudulent

transfer of the shares of stock are the value thereof and the expenses of
litigation, which plaintiff has testified to be P6,000, for these defendants-
appellants are liable by reason of the above-quoted provisions. We, therefore,
find without merit the second and last assignment of errors of appellants and
we, thereby, dismiss the same.

As their third assignment of error, it is claimed on behalf of the appellants that

defendants William Litam, Luis Litam and Li Tam and Company, Inc., did not
receive notice of the hearing on February 6, and 19, 1959; that the reason for
their failure to receive said notice is because they had already transferred their
places of residence; that they failed to notify the court of the changes of
address because they did not know that is required of them; that if allowed to
present evidence, they would substantially prove the allegations in their
answer.

The arguments presented by appellants are the same as those contained in

their motion for new trial and/or reconsideration, which the lower court
denied. The rule in this jurisdiction is that a petition for new trial is addressed
to the discretion of the court and this Court will not disturb the same on
appeal, unless there is grave abuse thereof (La O v. Dee, et al., L-3890,
January 23, 1952). We are only to examine the record of the case, to determine
if the denial constitutes an abuse of discretion.

There is no question that defendants Henry Litam, Gregorio Dy Tam and Li

Hong Hap actually received their copies of the order of the lower court setting
the case for hearing on February 6 and 19, 1959. Insofar as they are
concerned, therefore, they cannot claim denial of their day in court. Are the
other defendants, namely, Luis and William Litam and Li Tam and Company,
Inc., guilty of excusable negligence for their failure to appear during the trial?

The record discloses that as early as August 5, 1957, defendants' counsel, the
law office Sycip, et al., was already withdrawing from the case and this
withdrawal was reiterated in another motion for continuance of the hearing
scheduled for September 24, 1957. As early as August 5, 1957, therefore,
defendants must have known that they would be without counsel. They should
have, therefore, taken steps to secure the services of another. Again on
November 21, 1957, defendant Luis Litam agreed to the withdrawal of their
counsel, and Luis Litam signed the conformity to said withdrawal in his own
behalf and in those of the other defendants. There is nothing in the record,
especially in the affidavit of Luis Litam supporting defendants' motion for new
trial, that the other defendants did not authorized him to sign for them. Having
no lawyer to assist them in the proceedings, and knowing that the case was
then ready for hearing, defendants should have taken the necessary precaution
of hiring a new lawyer for any subsequent hearing or hearings. Those who had
changed their addresses should also have informed the court thereof. They
failed to do so, and it was only when they received a copy of the decision that
they hired their present counsel. Their neglect in doing so is certainly
inexcusable.

The defendants admit their places of residence alleged in the complaint in their
answer. As no notices of the changes of address was sent by them to the court,
naturally notices of hearing and orders of the court had to be sent to their
former addresses. With respect to defendant corporation, it is alleged in the
affidavit of Luis Litam that it had transferred its office to Sorsogon as early as
1953, but in their answer dated October 10, 1955, they admit that the office of
the defendant corporation is at 928 San Fernando, San Nicolas, Manila, the
same place where the notice of hearing was sent. This admission strengthens
the impression that defendants had deliberately refused to accept the notices of
hearing.

The record also discloses that the order setting the case for hearing was sent to
defendants Luis and William Litam and Li Tam and Company, Inc., who failed
to get said order inspite of the two notices sent to them. Inasmuch as
defendants failed to get their registered letters service upon them of said order
was deemed completed, five days from the date of the first notice, in accordance
with the provisions of Sec. 8, Rule 27 of the Rules. Consequently, defendants
can not now claim that they have not been given their day in court.

Furthermore, the petition for new trial could not be granted because there is
no showing that defendants have valid defenses to the complaint. The affidavit
of Luis Litam supporting defendants' motion for reconsideration and new trial
do not show any such valid defense. Consequently, the trial court correctly
denied defendants' motion for new trial and/or reconsideration.

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS the judgment appealed from

should be, as it hereby is, affirmed. With costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon,
JJ., concur.