Case Digest (G.R. No. 170080)
Facts:
Consolacion Q. Austria v. Consuelo Q. Jalandoni, G.R. No. 170080, April 03, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Consolacion Q. Austria (defendant in the trial court) and respondents Consuelo Q. Jalandoni, Jose Alberto L. Quintos, Ricardo M. Quintos, Jr., Aileen M. Quintos and Tyrone M. Quintos are full-blood siblings and co-owners of two parcels of land totaling 661 square meters in Palanan, Makati City, improved by a bungalow and two apartment units whose titles are jointly registered in their names.In early 1996 respondents sought partition of the properties according to each co-owner's share; a realtor prepared proposed physical partitions but petitioner refused to accept any scheme. On July 1, 1997 respondents filed a complaint for partition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 142 (Civil Case No. 97-1485). Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss which the trial court denied in an order dated November 10, 1997; her motion for reconsideration was denied on February 2, 1998.
Petitioner challenged the RTC orders via a Rule 65 petition in the Court of Appeals (CA-GR SP No. 46907). The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order incident to that petition on July 9, 1998 but later dismissed her petition by Decision dated October 30, 1998; her motion for reconsideration was denied in the CA Resolution of July 19, 2001. Petitioner then filed a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court, which was denied by resolution dated October 15, 2001 for nonpayment of required fees; her motion for reconsideration was denied January 24, 2002.
While the Rule 65 matter was pending, respondents asked the RTC to declare defendants in default and to allow ex parte presentation of evidence. The RTC initially held proceedings in abeyance but, after the CA’s temporary restraining order lapsed, declared the defendants in default in an order dated July 6, 1999, set reception of ex parte evidence, and commissioned the Branch Clerk to receive such evidence. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the default order and sought to cancel the ex parte presentation, all denied; respondents presented ex parte evidence January 28, 2000. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondents on February 14, 2000; petitioner’s motion for new trial was denied by order dated August 7, 2000.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which, by Decision dated June 21, 2005, affirmed the RTC judgment but deleted the order that petitioner pay reasonable rental for use of a portion of th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s declaration of default and the resulting judgment by default a denial of her right to be heard?
- Was the RTC’s alternative authorization to sell the subject properties to a third party and to divide the p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)