FACTS:

The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for revocation, annulment, and cancellation of certificates of title against Kenrick Development Corporation and Alfonso Concepcion. The complaint stemmed from Kenrick's construction of a perimeter fence on land owned by the Civil Aviation Training Center of the Air Transportation Office (ATO). Kenrick claimed ownership of the land based on titles it obtained from Concepcion. However, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) verified that the titles presented by Kenrick were not authentic and that the land actually belonged to the Villamor Air Base. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed the complaint on behalf of the Republic.

During the proceedings, it was discovered that the answer filed by Kenrick, purportedly signed by Atty. Onofre Garlitos, Jr., was actually signed by an unauthorized person. Atty. Garlitos revealed during a congressional hearing that he did not sign the answer and did not know who signed it. In response, the Republic filed a motion to declare Kenrick in default for failing to file a valid answer. The trial court granted the motion, striking Kenrick's answer from the records and allowing the Republic to present its evidence ex parte.

Kenrick sought reconsideration of the trial court's decision but was denied. It then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in declaring it in default. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, stating that Atty. Garlitos' statements were unreliable since they were not subject to cross-examination. The appellate court also concluded that Atty. Garlitos assented to the signing of the answer by someone in his stead, curing any defect the answer might have had. The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. As a result, the Republic filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the trial court's order which declared respondent in default for its failure to file a valid answer?

RULING:

1. Yes, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's order. The appellate court relied on the principle of adoptive admission to conclude that the respondent's answer was valid despite being signed by someone unauthorized by their counsel. However, the Supreme Court found that there was no clear and unambiguous assent by the respondent to adopt the statements made in the answer. Therefore, the answer should be considered as an unsigned pleading and have no legal effect. The trial court was correct in declaring the respondent in default.

PRINCIPLES:

• Adoptive admission is a party's reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party's reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person.

• For adoptive admission to be valid, there must be clear and unambiguous assent by the party to adopt the statements made.