Saguid v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Seventeen-year-old Gina S. Rey, who was married but de facto separated from her husband, cohabited with petitioner Jacinto Saguid from 1987 to 1996. They lived in a house built on a lot owned by Jacinto's father. Jacinto earned a living as a patron of a fishing vessel, while Gina worked as a fish dealer and later as an entertainer in Japan from 1992 to 1994. Their cohabitation ended in separation. Procedural History: Private respondent Gina S. Rey filed a complaint for Partition and Recovery of Personal Property with Receivership against petitioner Jacinto Saguid. She alleged contributing P70,000.00 to the completion of their house and acquiring personal properties worth P111,375.00 from her earnings. Petitioner claimed the house expenses were solely from his income and that Gina's income was meager and spent on her parents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared petitioner in default for failure to file a pre-trial brief. Despite motions for reconsideration, the RTC denied them and allowed private respondent to present evidence ex parte. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of private respondent, ordering partition of the house, reimbursement of P70,000.00, declaring private respondent the owner of personal properties, and ordering their return. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the award of moral damages. The CA ruled that the issue of default became moot due to the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which still requires pre-trial briefs and allows ex parte presentation of evidence for non-compliance. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, arguing that the CA erred in retroactively applying the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and in relying on evidence presented ex parte.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in allowing private respondent to present evidence ex parte. Whether the trial court's decision is supported by evidence, considering the ex parte presentation, and the substantive issue of co-ownership and contribution. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure retroactively and deeming the issue of default moot.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It declared Gina S. Rey as co-owner of the controverted house to the extent of P11,413.00 and of the personal properties to the extent of P55,687.50. Petitioner Jacinto Saguid was ordered to reimburse P67,100.50 to private respondent, failing which the house would be sold at public auction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of allowing ex parte presentation of evidence: The Court held that the trial court did not err in allowing private respondent to present evidence ex parte. Petitioner's failure to file a pre-trial brief, even without counsel, was not a sufficient justification to set aside the order. The Court emphasized that pre-trial rules are not to be belittled and their non-observance can prejudice substantive rights. While the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure were cited by the CA, the Court clarified that even prior to its effectivity, Supreme Court Circular No. 1-89 already required pre-trial briefs and allowed for ex parte presentation of evidence upon non-compliance. The petitioner's failure to inquire or seek an extension, instead waiting 14 days to file a motion for reconsideration, demonstrated a lack of diligence. On the substantive issue of co-ownership and contribution and whether the trial court's decision is supported by evidence: The Court ruled that the property regime of parties not capacitated to marry each other but living as husband and wife is governed by Article 148 of the Family Code. This article requires proof of actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry for co-ownership. In this case, private respondent alleged contributing P70,000.00 to the house, but only presented receipts totaling P11,413.00 for construction materials. Therefore, her proven contribution to the house was limited to this amount. Regarding the personal properties valued at P111,375.00, the Court found that while both parties contributed to their joint account, there was insufficient proof of the exact extent of their respective shares. Applying Article 148, in the absence of such proof, their shares were presumed equal, entitling private respondent to one-half of the value, or P55,687.50. On the application of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: The Court agreed with the petitioner that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure rendered the issue of default moot. While the rules can be applied retroactively, it was not called for in this case as the underlying principle of requiring pre-trial briefs and allowing ex parte presentation for non-compliance existed even before the 1997 Rules, specifically under Supreme Court Circular No. 1-89. However, this error did not alter the outcome regarding the ex parte presentation of evidence, as the petitioner's failure to comply with the pre-existing circular was not sufficiently justified.
Main Doctrine
Under Article 148 of the Family Code, properties acquired by parties in a bigamous or adulterous relationship through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are owned in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof of the extent of their contributions, their shares are presumed to be equal. Failure to file a pre-trial brief, without a valid justification such as fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect, may result in the plaintiff being allowed to present evidence ex parte.