G.R. No. 76351 - Aguilar vs. Court of Appeals

Virgilio B. Aguilar (petitioner) and Senen B. Aguilar (respondent) are brothers, youngest and fifth among seven children of the late Maximiano Aguilar.
On October 28, 1969, they jointly purchased a house and lot in Parañaque for their father’s residence.

Initially, Virgilio’s share was two-thirds and Senen’s one-third.
By written memorandum dated February 23, 1970, they agreed to equalize their interests, with Senen assuming the remaining SSS mortgage and registering the title in his name; Senen was to care for the father while Virgilio’s family remained in Cebu.

Maximiano Aguilar died in 1974. Virgilio demanded that Senen vacate the property, sell it and divide the proceeds two-thirds to Virgilio and one-third to Senen, including arrears of rental from 1975.
On January 12, 1979, Virgilio filed an action to compel sale and partition, praying for his two-thirds share of proceeds and rentals. Senen counter-claimed for equal division of sale proceeds and asserted his right to use the property as co-owner.

Pre-trial was set for April 26, 1979. On April 20, Senen’s counsel moved to cancel pre-trial due to his wife’s sponsorship in a wedding; the court denied the motion on April 23.
At pre-trial, plaintiff and counsel appeared; respondent and his counsel (armed with special power of attorney) did not. The court declared respondent in default and allowed ex parte evidence.
On July 26, 1979, the trial court rendered default judgment: confirmed equal co-ownership, ordered sale and equal division of proceeds, directed Senen’s eviction, and awarded Virgilio P1,200 per month rentals from January 1975.
Senen’s omnibus motion for new trial filed September 17, 1979 was denied October 22, 1979.

In CA-GR CV No. 03933, dated October 16, 1986, the Court of Appeals set aside the orders of April 23 and 26, 1979, the July 26 default judgment, and the October 22 order denying new trial.
The appellate court held that counsel’s reason for postponement was sufficient and that respondent should not have been declared in default.

Virgilio petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that (a) the motion to cancel pre-trial was dilatory and (b) the remand for pre-trial and trial was erroneous.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding the trial court properly exercised its discretion, correctly declared default, and correctly rendered judgment on the merits, with modification on rental effectivity.

Whether the trial court correctly declared respondent in default for failure to appear at pre-trial and allowed ex parte evidence.
Whether the trial court correctly rendered a default judgment for partition and awarded rentals.