G.R. No. 184843 - Dycoco vs. Orina

Petitioner Jeffrey Dayrit and his wife Marina Valencia Dayrit secured a loan amounting to P15 million from the respondent, Philippine Bank of Communications.
The couple mortgaged their house and lot located in White Plains, Quezon City, as collateral. The property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. RT 14505 (364674) PR 9723 and RT 14504 (364675) PR 9724.

The Dayrits subsequently defaulted on their obligation to pay.
In response, the respondent foreclosed the mortgage and sold the property at a public auction, where the bank itself emerged as the highest bidder.
A certificate of sale was issued in favor of the respondent.

Following the lapse of the redemption period in May 1993, the respondent moved to consolidate the property titles.
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 94179 and 04180 were subsequently issued in the name of the respondent.

As the Dayrits refused to surrender possession of the property, the respondent filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94 (L.R.C. Case No. Q-6570 (94)), for the issuance of a writ of possession.
During the first hearing, the Dayrits, represented by counsel, appeared and expressed their intention to pay the debt.
The Dayrits failed to appear in later hearings, leading the trial court to allow the respondent to present its evidence ex parte.
On August 10, 1995, the trial court rendered its decision ordering the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the respondent.

The Dayrits received a copy of the court decision on September 15, 1995.
On October 17, 1995, 32 days after receipt, they filed a motion for reconsideration alleging non-receipt of notices for the hearing on the merits, the ex parte proceedings, and the decision.
The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration.
The Dayrits subsequently appealed the decision before the Court of Appeals, which on July 2, 1999, dismissed the appeal for being filed late (beyond the 15-day period as prescribed by Section 8(a) of the Interim Rules) and for lack of merit, while affirming the writ of possession.

Whether petitioner Jeffrey Dayrit was denied due process when the trial court allowed an ex parte presentation of evidence by the respondent.
Whether the failure to notify the petitioner of subsequent hearings and the order resetting their schedule amounted to a deprivation of the opportunity to be heard.

Whether the ex parte presentation of evidence by the respondent, following the petitioner’s non-appearance, was proper under the circumstances.
Whether the trial court’s approval to present evidence ex parte was justified given the Dayrits’ failure to attend the hearings.

Whether the issuance of the writ of possession is considered a ministerial act, automatically binding the trial court once the proper motion has been filed and the bond approved.
Whether the ministerial character of this function exempts the court from liability even if procedural shortcomings are alleged.

Whether the petitioner’s subsequent appeal should be allowed given that it was filed 32 days after receipt of the decision, surpassing the mandatory 15-day period.
Whether the alleged non-receipt of the trial court’s decision by either the petitioner or his counsel could justify a recalculation of the appeal period.