Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


Second Judicial Region
Branch 26
Luna, Apayao
OFELIA TACAC and LEONILA
ROMERO,
Plaintiffs,
-versusAVELINO ROMERO, et. al.,
Defendant
s.
x------------------------------------x

CIVIL CASE No. 42015


For:
JUDICIAL PARTITION
OF
REAL ESTATE

MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANTS IN


DEFAULT
Plaintiffs thru counsel and unto this Honorable Court
most respectfully move to declare the defendants in default
and alleges:
1. That defendants RUBEN ROMERO, DIOSDADO ROMERO,
LOPE CALUMPIT, RODRIGO ROMERO and AVELINO
ROMERO received the on August 27, 2015 as alleged by
the defendants in their EX-PARTE MOTION FOR
EXTENSION TO FILE ANSWER dated September 10,
2015;
2. That on September 10, 2015, defendants RUBEN
ROMERO, DIOSDADO ROMERO, LOPE CALUMPIT,
RODRIGO ROMERO and AVELINO ROMERO filed an exparte motion for extension to file answer asking for
thirty (30) days, or until October 11, 2015, within which
to submit their answer;
3. That plaintiffs did not receive any resolution from the
Honorable Court granting the extension prayed for by
the defendants;

4. That on October 15, 2015, instead of filing their


answers on October 11, 2015, defendants RUBEN
ROMERO, DIOSDADO ROMERO, LOPE CALUMPIT,
RODRIGO ROMERO and AVELINO ROMERO for the
second (2nd) time filed another motion for extension of
time to submit their answer;
5. That however, granting that the September 10, 2015
motion of the defendants was granted, there was no
more period of time for which to extend, the same
having expired in October 10, 2015. In other words, the
period the defendants prayed to be extended had
already expired;
6. That it is a fundamental rule of remedial law that a
motion for extension of time must be filed before the
expiration of the period sought to be extended;
otherwise, the same is of no effect since there would no
longer be any period to extend;1
7. That defendants RUBEN ROMERO, DIOSDADO ROMERO,
LOPE CALUMPIT, RODRIGO ROMERO and AVELINO
ROMERO alleged that their co-defendant died in
October 10, 2015 causing them to fail to submit their
answer is untenable because they allowed twenty-nine
(29) days to pass without submitting an answer
considering that the extension they prayed expired in
October 11, 2015;
8. That the death of their co-defendant came only as an
afterthought and a convenient excuse for them to
further delay the proceedings in this case;
9. That the motion for extension dated October 15, 2015
filed by the defendants was not signed by ESTRELITA
SABAL; and
10.
That if defendants are allowed to delay the
proceedings, it will be a mockery of the rules and
trampling of the coercive power of the court processes.
ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully prayed that the
defendants RUBEN ROMERO, DIOSDADO ROMERO, LOPE
CALUMPIT, RODRIGO ROMERO and AVELINO ROMERO be
declared in default for failure to file their respective answer
1 Vda. de Victoria v. Court of Appeals, 490 Phil. 210, 221-222

within the time allowed by the rules, and the plaintiffs be


allowed to present their evidence ex-parte.
Plaintiffs likewise pray for other reliefs that are just and
equitable under the premises.
Appari, Cagayan for Luna, Apayao. November 3, 2015.