Case Digest (G.R. No. 232682)
Facts:
Patricio G. Gemina, and All Other Persons Claiming Rights Under Him v. Heirs of Gerardo V. Espejo, Jr., G.R. No. 232682, September 13, 2021, Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Patricio G. Gemina claimed ownership and continuous, open, peaceful possession of a lot at 156 Session Road, Woodcrest Homes, Talanay, Area B, Batasan Hills, Quezon City (the subject property) since 1978, supporting his claim with a 1978 Deed of Absolute Sale (quitclaim), building permit, tax declarations and receipts, photos of trees he planted, a deed of conditional sale (1995), and homeowners association records showing his offices. Respondents were the Heirs of Gerardo V. Espejo, Jr. (Ma. Teresa R. Espejo, Jaime Gerardo Francisco R. Espejo, Rhodora Patrice R. Espejo, represented by Ma. Teresa) and Nenafe V. Espejo, who relied on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. RIV786U/93809) and tax declarations in the names of Gerardo and Nenafe, plus documents (deeds, marriage and birth certificates, death certificate) showing succession to Gerardo’s rights after his death in 1975.
The Espejo heirs sent Gemina a demand to vacate on December 15, 2004; when he refused, they filed initially for unlawful detainer but later filed an action for recovery of possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 80, Quezon City. At pre-trial Gemina personally appeared but his counsel failed to appear; the trial court, after granting the counsel’s withdrawal and finding the motion for reconsideration defective for lack of notice, allowed the Espejos to present evidence ex parte on November 26, 2012. Gemina’s new counsel (Public Attorney’s Office) later filed motions for reconsideration which the RTC denied. On September 3, 2013 the RTC rendered judgment for the Espejo heirs, ordering Gemina and those claiming under him to vacate, awarding reasonable compensation (P10,000/month from March 22, 2006), interest, and attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 101629, affirmed the RTC’s decision on February 22, 2017 but modified the interest rate (reducing it to 6% per annum) and deleted the award of attorney’s fees; it also held that Gemina was bound by the RTC order allowing ex parte presentation because his counsel’s “Withdrawal of Counsel with Attached Motion for Reconsideration” lacked a notice of hearing (citing Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15, Rules of Court). The CA denied Gemina’s motion for reconsideration on June...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the trial court’s allowance of the respondents’ ex parte presentation of evidence because petitioner’s counsel was absent at pre-trial while petitioner himself was present, thereby violating petitioner’s right to due process.
- Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming judgment for the respondents despite their alleged failure to prove the identity of the land in...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)