You are on page 1of 2

SAGUID vs.

CA TOPIC: RULE 18

JUNE 10, 2003


PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI (?? Decision did not say)
PETITIONER: JACINTO SAGUID
RESPONDENT: CA, RTC OF BOAC, and GINA REY

R, married but separated de facto from her husband, cohabited with P on a lot owned by P’s
father. She went to Japan when her relationship with P’s relatives turned sour. Eventually, the
couple ended their cohabitation and separated, leaving behind an unfinished house and several
personal properties therein.

PETITIONER COURT RESPONDENT


ANSWER RTC BOAC COMPLAINT FOR
-expenses for house DECLARED P IN DEFAULT PARTITION AND
construction solely from his FOR FAILURE TO FILE A PRE- RECOVERY OF
income TRIAL BRIEF; PERSONAL PROPERTY
-R’s income inadequate to DENIED MR AND ALLOWED WITH RECEIVERSHIP
contribute to the construction
R TO PRESENT EVIDENCE EX- -prayed that she be declared
of the house
PARTE sole owner of the appliances,
furniture and household
DECIDED CASE IN R’S FAVOR effects she contributed during
their cohabitation and that she
be refunded her P70k
contribution for their
unfinished house
APPEAL CA
AFFIRMED RTC
-new 1997 RCP requires filing of
pretrial brief and P’s
noncompliance entitles R to present
evidence ex parte
MR CA
MR
DENIED
SC
AFFIRMED CA w/ MODIF
-R declared as coowner of P in the
PETITION FOR REVIEW
house to the extent of 11,413 and
-WON RTC erred in allowing R
personal properties to the extent of
to present evidence ex parte
55, 687.5; total of which must be
reimbursed by P to R

DISCUSSION:
1. Sec. 6, Rule 18, 1997 RCP  Failure of defendant to file pretrial brief shall have the same effect
as failure to appear at the pretrial
-plaintiff may present his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis
thereof
-defendant’s remedy: file MR showing that his failure to file a pretrial brief was due to fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable neglect (no need to stress a valid and meritorious defense)

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE


SAGUID vs. CA TOPIC: RULE 18

-P’s claim that his failure to file a PTB was due to the fact that he was not represented by
counsel is not sufficient justification to set aside the order directing R to present evidence ex
parte, as P chose at his own risk not to be represented by counsel
2. Pre-trial rules are not to be belittled or dismissed because their non-observance may result in
prejudice to a party’s substantive rights
-should be followed EXC for the most persuasive of reasons
-here, the fact that P was not assisted by a lawyer is not a persuasive reason to relax the
application of the rules; nothing in the Constitution which mandates that a party in a
noncriminal proceeding be represented by counsel and that absence of such representation
amounts to denial of due process
3. P and R’s property regime governed by Art. 148 FC since they were not capacitated to marry
each other because R was married to another man
-only properties acquired by both parties through their actual joint contribution of money,
property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective
contributions; proof of actual contribution is required, otherwise, their share will be
presumed equal (which is what is applied by the SC in this case)
-Rule applies even if cohabitation or acquisition of the property occurred before the FC took
effect

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE