CRISOLOGO-JOSE

vs.
LAND BANK
G.R. No. 167399 June 22, 2006
GARCIA, J.
 FACTS
On September 25, 1997, Crisologo filed a PETITION for
determination of just compensation respecting 61.786 hectares of
land.

It appears that in the midst of Crisologo’s presentation of evidence,

the trial court admitted Land Bank’s ANSWER.

On September 8, 1999, the trial court, after due proceedings,

rendered judgment fixing the fair market value of the 61.7860
hectares of the land in question atP100,000.00 per hectare.
2
Land Bank filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.

Following the denial of its motion for reconsideration, Land

Bank went on appeal to the CA.

Eventually, the CA, in a decision dated October 15, 2004,

reversed that of the trial court.

In time, Crisologo moved for reconsideration but the CA denied

her motion.
3
 CONTENTION

Crisologo faults the Court of Appeals for relying on and lending credence to
the allegations and defenses that Land Bank averred in its answer which it
filed beyond the 15-day period prescribed under Section 1, Rule 11 of the
Rules of Court.

She also blames the trial court for admitting, instead of expunging from the
records, said answer and for not declaring the Land Bank in default.

4
 ISSUE
Whether the trial court was correct in admitting
Land Bank’s answer even though it was filed
beyond the 15-day prescribed period?

YES
5
 RULING

To admit or to reject an answer filed after the prescribed period is

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. In fact, Section 11, Rule 11
of the Rules authorizes the court to accept answer though filed late, thus:

SECTION. 11. Extension of time to plead. Upon motion and on such terms
as may be just, the court may extend the time to plead provided in these
Rules.

The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other pleading to
be filed after the time fixed by these Rules. (Emphasis added.)
6
Indiana Aerospace
Education “
University vs. Commission on Higher

An answer should be admitted where it had been filed before the

defendant was declared in default and no prejudice is caused to
the plaintiff.

Crisologo has not demonstrated how the admission by the trial

court of Land Bank’s answer was prejudicial to her case which, at
bottom, involves only the determination of the fair market value of
her property.
7
Trajano vs. Cruz

“Applying what is now Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court

"the court cannot motu proprio declare a party in default."

8
Not lost on the Court, of course, is the fact that Crisologo, after
securing the desired ruling from the trial court, never brought up the
matter of Land Bank’s belated filing of an answer before the CA.
Needless to belabor, issues not raised below cannot, as a rule, be
raised for the first time before the Court.