This case involves a dispute over a parcel of land that Simplicio Palanca had sold to Josefa Jopson through an installment contract. Jopson then transferred her rights over the property to Ulyssis Guides. Guides discovered that the title was not in Palanca's name. She filed a case in trial court where both parties presented evidence over multiple hearings. However, at the final hearing Palanca did not appear and was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence. The trial court ruled in Guides' favor. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Palanca was afforded due process and opportunities to present his case but failed to do so.
This case involves a dispute over a parcel of land that Simplicio Palanca had sold to Josefa Jopson through an installment contract. Jopson then transferred her rights over the property to Ulyssis Guides. Guides discovered that the title was not in Palanca's name. She filed a case in trial court where both parties presented evidence over multiple hearings. However, at the final hearing Palanca did not appear and was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence. The trial court ruled in Guides' favor. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Palanca was afforded due process and opportunities to present his case but failed to do so.
This case involves a dispute over a parcel of land that Simplicio Palanca had sold to Josefa Jopson through an installment contract. Jopson then transferred her rights over the property to Ulyssis Guides. Guides discovered that the title was not in Palanca's name. She filed a case in trial court where both parties presented evidence over multiple hearings. However, at the final hearing Palanca did not appear and was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence. The trial court ruled in Guides' favor. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Palanca was afforded due process and opportunities to present his case but failed to do so.
This case involves a dispute over a parcel of land that Simplicio Palanca had sold to Josefa Jopson through an installment contract. Jopson then transferred her rights over the property to Ulyssis Guides. Guides discovered that the title was not in Palanca's name. She filed a case in trial court where both parties presented evidence over multiple hearings. However, at the final hearing Palanca did not appear and was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence. The trial court ruled in Guides' favor. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Palanca was afforded due process and opportunities to present his case but failed to do so.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
Simplicio A.
Palanca vs Ulyssis Guides joined by her husband Lorenzo
Guides G.R. No. 146365
FACTS:
•Simplicio Palance executed a Contract to Sell a parcel of land on installment with Josefa A. Jopson. Jopson then assigned and transferred all her rights and interests over the property in question in favor of the respondent Ulyssis Guides.
•Believing that she had fully paid her obligation, respondent verified the status of the lot with the Register of Deeds, only to find out that the title was not in the name of the petitioner as it was covered by the Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of a certain Carissa T. de Leon.
•A complaint was filed with the trial court and the parties were allowed to make their cases and show evidence. But at the last scheduled hearing for the case, no one appeared for the petitioner without any explanation of their non-appearance. The trial court, upon motion of respondent, considered petitioner to have waived his right to present evidence and have rested the case and declared the case submitted for decision.
•Petitioner sought reconsideration twice, but was denied both times. The trial court rendered decision in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Simplicio A. Palanca.
•Petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal claiming that the trial court erred in denying his right to present evidence in support of his cause. In its decision, the CA held that petitioner was afforded due process, having been given the opportunity to present and submit evidence in support of his defense. A Subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied by the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his right to present evidence.
HELD:
Well-settled is the rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client. The Court agrees with the trial court that notice to Atty. Cario is in fact notice to both petitioner and Atty. Novero in the light of the recorded fact that Atty. Cario had actively participated in the presentation of petitioner’s evidence during the previous proceedings. No clearer proof of notice can be had than the signature of Atty. Cario assenting to the resetting of the case. Indeed, neither he nor Atty. Novero can feign ignorance of the said arrangement. The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard. A court denies a party due process if it renders its orders without giving such party an opportunity to present its evidence. Thus, in the application of this principle, what is sought to be safeguarded against is not the lack of previous notice, but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. The question is not whether petitioner succeeded in defending his interest, but whether he had the opportunity to present his side. Petitioner was provided opportunities to present his case but these he utterly squandered.
The questioned decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed with modification. Petitioner is ordered to return the overpayment in the amount of P1,527.10 to respondent.
