Title
Aguilar vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 76351
Decision Date
Oct 29, 1993
Brothers co-owned property; post-father’s death, dispute arose over sale and rentals. Trial court declared default, ordered sale, and awarded rentals. Supreme Court upheld default judgment, affirmed equal co-ownership, and modified rental terms.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 4958)

Petitioner

Virgilio B. Aguilar – co-owner seeking judicial partition by sale, division of proceeds, possession rights, and rental compensation.

Respondent

Senen B. Aguilar – co-owner in possession of the property, resisting partition on petitioner’s claimed terms and refusing to pay rent.

Key Dates

• 28 October 1969 – Purchase of house and lot by both brothers.
• 23 February 1970 – Memorandum equalizing their shares in exchange for mortgage assumption by Senen.
• 1974 – Death of their father.
• 12 January 1979 – Virgilio files action for compulsory sale and partition.
• 26 April 1979 – Scheduled pre-trial; Senen and counsel absent; default declared.
• 26 July 1979 – Default judgment ordering sale, equal division of proceeds, ejectment, and rent award.
• 22 October 1979 – Trial court denies new-trial motion.
• 16 October 1986 – Court of Appeals annuls default orders and judgment.
• 29 October 1993 – Supreme Court decision reinstating trial court judgment with modifications.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (effective basis for decisions post-1990).
• Civil Code (Arts. 486, 494, 498) on co-ownership and partition.
• Rules of Court (Sec. 2, Rule 20 on pre-trial defaults).

Factual Background

The brothers purchased the property to provide a home for their father. Originally holding two-thirds (Virgilio) and one-third (Senen), they agreed in writing to equal shares, with Senen assuming the mortgage and caring for their father.

Procedural History

After their father’s death, Virgilio demanded partition by sale, division of proceeds (2/3–1/3), and rent for Senen’s occupation. Senen counterclaimed for equal division and rental exemption. At pre-trial, Senen’s counsel moved to postpone due to a social engagement; the trial court denied it. Neither Senen nor his counsel appeared at pre-trial; default and ex parte evidence presentation followed. The trial court rendered default judgment ordering sale, equal division, ejectment, and P1,200 monthly rent. The Court of Appeals later set aside these orders as unjustified.

Issue I: Default for Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial

Whether the trial court properly denied the postponement motion and validly declared Senen in default for non-appearance at the mandatory pre-trial conference.

Analysis on Pre-Trial Default

Under Rule 20, Sec. 2, parties must attend pre-trial. Failure to appear may lead to default. The postponement motion, based on a social commitment of counsel, fell within the trial court’s discretion—and the court reasonably found the excuse insufficient. Neither Senen nor another representative appeared; thus, the default declaration and authorization for ex parte evidence were proper exercises of discretion.

Issue II: Default Judgment on Merits

Whether the default judgment correctly established equal co-ownership, compelled sale, ordered ejectment, and awarded rent.

Ownership and Partition Rights Under Civil Code

Civil Code Article 494 grants each co‐owner the right to demand partition at any time. When indivisibility prevents physical partition and co-owners cannot agree, Article 498 mandates sale and distribution of proceeds. The written agreement confirmed equal shares. Virgilio’s petition for sale was legally sound; Senen could not prevent it.

Entitlement to Possession and Rent

Before judicial termination of co-ownership, each co-owner may use the entire property without rent, provided no harm to others (Art. 486). Once the trial court ordered partit

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.