CORPO CASES SALVATIERRA- LAUREANO 1 G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA,petitioner, vs. HON. LORENZO C. GARLITOS, ! "# $a%a$&y a# '()*+ o&"+ Co(& o#& I!#&a!$+ oL+y&+, /a!$" II, a!) SEGUNDINO REUERZO,respondents. Jimenez, Tantuico, Jr. and Tolete for petitioner. Francisco Astilla for respondent Segundino Refuerzo. ELI0, J.This is a petition for certiorari filed by Manuela T. Vda. de Salvatierra seeking to nullify the order of the Court of First Instance of Leyte in Civil Case o. !"!#, dated March #!, !"$%, relieving Segundino &efuer'o of liability for the contract entered into bet(een the for)er and the *hilippine Fibers *roducers Co., Inc., of (hich &efuer'o is the president. The facts of the case are as follo(s+ Manuela T. Vda. de Salvatierra appeared to be the o(ner of a parcel of land located at Maghob as, *ob lac ion, ur auen, Tey te. -n March , !"$/, said landh older entered into a contr act of lease (ith the *hilip pine Fibers *roduce rs Co., Inc., allegedly a corporation 0duly organi'ed and e1isting under the la(s of the *hi lip pines, do)ici led at ur auen, Ley te, *hi lip pin es, and (it h bus iness address therein, represented in this instance by Mr. Segundino 2. &efuer'o, the *resident0. It (as provided in said contract, a)ong other things, that the lifeti)e of the lease (ould be for a period of !3 years4 that the land (ould be planted to kenaf, ra)ie or other crops suitable to the soil4 that the lessor (ould be entitled to 53 per cent of the net inco)e accruing fro) the harvest of any, crop (ithout being responsible for the cost of production thereof4 and that after every harvest, the lessee (as bound to declare at the earliest possible ti)e the inco)e derived therefro) and to deliver the corresponding share due the lessor. 6pparently, the afore)entioned obligations i)posed on the alleged corporation (ere not co)plied (ith because on 6pril $, !"$$, 6lanuela T. Vda, de Salvatierra filed (ith the Court of First Insta nce of Leyt e a co)plaint agains t the *hilippi ne Fibers *roducers Co., Inc., and Segundino 2. &efuer'o, for accounting, rescission and da)ages 7Civil Case o. !"!#8. She averred that so)eti)e in 6pril, !"$/, defendants planted kenaf on 5 hectares of the leased property (hich crop (as, at the ti)e of the co))ence)ent of the action, already harvested, processed and sold by defendants4 that not(ithstanding that fact, defendants refused to render an accounting of the inco)e derived therefro) and to deliver the lessor9s share4 that the esti)ated gross inco)e (as */,$33, and thedeductible e1penses a)ounted to *!,3334 that as defendants9 refusal to undertake such task (as in violation of the ter)s of the covenant entered into bet(een the plaintiff and defendant corporation, a rescission (as but proper. 6s defendants apparently failed to file their ans(er to the co)plaint, of (hich they (ere alleged ly notified , the Court declared the) in defau lt and proceeded to receive plaintiff9s evidence. -n June 8, 1955, the lo(er Court rendered :udg)ent gra nti ng pla int iff 9s pra yer , and re; uir ed def end ant s to ren der a co)plete accounting of the harvest of the land sub:ect of the proceeding (ithin !$ days fro) receipt of the decision and to deliver 53 per cent of the net inco)e reali'ed fro) the last harvest to plaintiff, (ith legal interest fro) the date defendants received pay)ent for said crop. It (as further provide that upon defendants9 failure to abide by the said re;uire)ent, the gross inco)e (ould be fi1ed at */,#33 or a net inco)e of *5,#33 after deducting the e1penses for production, 53 per cent of (hich or *"%3 (as held to be due the plaintiff pursuant to the afore)entioned contract of lease, (hich (as declared rescinded. o appeal there fro) having been perfected (ithin the regle)entary perio d, the Court, upon )otion of plaintiff, issued a (rit of e1ecution, in virtue of (hich the *rovincial Sheriff of Leyte caused the attach)ent of 5 parcels of land registered in the na)e of Segundino &efuer'o. o property of the *hilippine Fibers *roducers Co., Inc., (as found available for attach)ent. -n <anuary 5!, !"$%, defendant Segundino &efuer'o filed a )otion clai)ing that the decision rendered in said Civil Case o. !"!# (as null and void (ith respect to hi), there being no allegation in the co)plaint pointing to his personal liability and thus prayed that an order be issued li)iting such liability to defendant corporation. -ver plaintiff9s opposition, the Court a quo granted the sa)e and ordered the *rovincial Sheriff of Leyte to relea se all prope rties belong ing to the )ovant that )ight have alrea dy been attached, after finding that the evidence on record )ade no )ention or referred to any fact (hich )ight hold )ovant personally liable therein. 6s plaintiff9s petition for relief fro) said order (as denie d, Manuela T. Vda. de Salva tierr a insti tuted the instant action asserting that the trial <udge in issuing the order co)plained of, acted (ith grave abuse of discretion and prayed that sa)e be declared a nullity. Fro) the foregoing narration of facts, it is clear that the order sought to be nullified (as issued by til e responden t <ud ge upon )otion of def end ant &efuer'o, obviously pursuant to &ule 5= of the &ules of Court. Section 5 of said &ule, ho(ever, in providing for the period (ithin (hich such a )otion )ay be filed, prescribes that+ S>C. 5. ?@>*>TITI-FIL>A4 C-T>TS 6A V>&IFIC6TI-. B 6 petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this rule )ust be verified, filed it!in si"t# da#s after t!e petitioner learns of t!e $udgment, order, or ot!er proceeding to %e set aside, and not more t!a n si" mont!s after suc! $udgment or order as entered, or such proceeding (as taken4 and )ust be )ust be acco)panie d (ith affid avit sho(in g the fraud, accid ent, )istake , or e1cusable neglige nce relied upon, and the facts constituting the petit ioner is good and substantial cause of actio n or defense, as the case )ay be, (hich he )ay prove if his petition be granted0. 7&ule 5=8 The afore;uoted provision treats of # periods, i.e., %3 days after petitioner learns of the :udg)ent, and not )ore than % )on ths after the :ud g)e nt or order (as rendered, both of (hich )ust be satisfied. 6s the decision in the case at bar (as under date of <une =, !"$$, (hereas the )otion filed by respondent &efuer'o (as
