BITTE VS.

JONAS

FACTS:
This controversy stemmed from a purported contract of sale involving a piece of property
situated at 820 corner Jacinto Street and Quezon Boulevard, Davao City (subject property). It
was initially under the name of Rosa Elsa Jonas and presently under the name of Ganzon Yap,
married to Haima Yap (Spouses Yap). Before Rosa Elsa went to Australia, she had executed a
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing her mother, Andrea C. Serrano (Andrea), to sell
the property. Sometime in May 1996, Cipriano Serrano (Cipriano), son of Andrea and brother of
Rosa Elsa, offered the property for sale to Spouses Bitte showing them the authority of Andrea.
He received Php 200, 000 then Php 400,000 in consideration thereof. Spouses Bitte sought a
meeting for final negotiation with Rosa Elsa. On October 10, 1996, shortly after her arrival here
in the Philippines, Rosa Elsa revoked the SPA, through an instrument of even date, and handed
a copy thereof to Andrea. The next day, on October 11, 1996, the parties met at Farida Bitte’s
office, but no final agreement was reached. The next day, Rosa Elsa withdrew from the
transaction. On October 17, 1996, Spouses Bitte filed before the RTC a Complaint for Specific
Performance with Damages seeking to compel Rosa Elsa, Andrea and Cipriano to transfer to
their names the title over the subject property. RTC rendered judgment in favor of Bitte,
demanding that they pay for the balance remaining for the acquisition of property. Spouses
Jonas appealed before CA. Judgment was reversed. After the denial of their MR, Spouses Bitte
filed a petition for certiorari. In their Comment, Spouses Jonas called the attention of the Court
to the fact that Spouses Bitte had been declared in default by the RTC. Spouses Jonas
contended that, being in default, Spouses already lost the legal personality to resort to this
petition. They also averred that the questions presented in this petition are one of FACTS and
not of law. Not being a trier of FACTS, this Court must deny the petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Spouses Bitte my avail themselves of the right to appeal despite being
declared in default

RULING:
The rule is that “right to appeal from the judgment by default is not lost and can be done on
grounds that the amount of the judgment is excessive or is different in kind from that prayed for,
or that the plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of his complaint, or that the decision is
contrary to law.” If a party who has been declared in default has in his arsenal the remedy of
appeal from the judgment of default on the basis of the decision having been issued against the
evidence or the law, that person cannot be denied the remedy and opportunity to assail the
judgment in the appellate court. Despite being burdened by the circumstances of default, the
petitioners may still use all other remedies available to question not only the judgment of default
but also the judgment on appeal before this Court. Those remedies necessarily include an
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.