View full case

JACINTO SAGUID v. CA

FACTS:

Gina S. Rey filed a complaint for Partition and Recovery of Personal Property with Receivership against Jacinto Saguid, alleging that she contributed P70,000.00 to the completion of their house using her salary as an entertainer in Japan, and acquired personal properties worth P111,375.00 from her earnings. Rey requested to be declared as the sole owner of these personal properties and to be reimbursed the amount of P70,000.00 representing her contribution to the construction.

Rey claimed to have deposited some of her earnings in her savings account and joint account with Saguid, with a total balance of P21,046.08 and P35,465.00, respectively. She used these deposits to purchase construction materials, appliances, and other personal properties.

Saguid, in his answer to the complaint, argued that he solely financed the construction of their house through his income as the captain of their fishing vessel. He claimed that Rey's meager income prevented her from contributing to the construction. Saguid also claimed to have saved P130,000.00, P75,000.00 of which was placed in a joint account deposit with Rey and used to purchase the disputed personal properties.

The trial court declared Saguid in default for failing to file a pre-trial brief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on appeal. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration which were denied. Saguid then filed a petition questioning the trial court's decision and the allowance of Rey to present evidence ex parte.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the trial court erred in allowing private respondent to present evidence ex parte.

  2. Whether or not the trial court's decision is supported by evidence.

RULING:

  1. The trial court did not err in allowing the private respondent to present evidence ex parte. Under Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure of the defendant to file a pre-trial brief has the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial. As a result, the plaintiff may present evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. The defendant's remedy is to file a motion for reconsideration showing that his failure to file a pre-trial brief was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.

  2. The trial court's decision is supported by evidence. The court found that the private respondent was able to contribute to the construction of their house and acquire personal properties. The court ordered the partition of the house and the reimbursement of the private respondent's contribution. It also declared the private respondent as the exclusive owner of the personal properties and ordered the defendant to return or deliver them.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The regime of limited co-ownership applies to parties who are not legally capacitated to marry each other but live together as husband and wife. Co-ownership is limited to the extent of their respective contributions. In the absence of proof of the extent of contributions, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal.

  • Failure to file a pre-trial brief has the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial. The plaintiff may present evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. The defendant's remedy is to file a motion for reconsideration showing that the failure to file a pre-trial brief was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.