VERGEL, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GONZALES, respondents.

G.R. No. 125154. September 28, 2001

Facts:

The case is an appeal via certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals setting aside the order of
the trial court that denied petitioners motion to set aside the order of general default] in an application
for registration of a parcel of land.

Sometime in May 1994, Digna Vergel, Eduardo Salvacruz, Beatriz Mañacop, Felicisima Flores,
Generoso and Blandino Salvacruz, Milagros Evangelista and the heirs of Corazon Santiago,
namely: Leocadio, Jr. and Concepcion Santiago (petitioners herein) filed with the RTC, an
application for registration of a parcel of land (for titling purposes).
In, July 1994 Director of Lands filed an opposition to the application for registration.
In December 1994, Trial Court issued an order of general default against the whole world with
the exception of Republic of the Philippines.
In October 1995, respondent Gonzales filed an "Urgent Motion to Set Aside the Order of
General Default" alleging, inter alia, claiming the land in question subject of this petition as an
owner. Motion was opposed by the petitioners.
Gonzales filed a reply and prayed for the suspension of the proceedings. Trial court
Denied it for lack of merit.
Petitioners filed a "Motion to Strike Out Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceeding."

Meanwhile, Gonzales filed with the trial court a "motion for reconsideration.”
However, TRIAL COURT ”Denied it for lack of merit”.
Respondent filed with the CA a petition for certiorari .
CA favored the respondent.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in setting aside the trial courts order of general default in
the land registration case involved without making a specific finding of fraud,
negligence, accident or excusable mistake.
Ruling:
Yes. CA erred in setting aside the order of general default in this case without making a specific
finding of fraud, accident or excusable neglect that prevented respondent from timely opposing
the application.
Gonzales failure to file timely opposition to the application for land registration because she missed
reading the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette or in the newspaper was not considered
excusable negligence. CA failed on finding that petitioners were aware of Gonzales claim of ownership
over the subject property, and that petitioners filed the application in bad faith, surreptitiously and without
notice to her. Petition Granted.