Jacinto Saguid v CA& Gina Rey

Effect of failure to appear

Facts:
1. Petitioner Jacinto and Respondent Gina cohabited as a husband and wife, Gina being
married but separated de facto from her husband and only 17yo at the time.
2. Jacinto worked as a captain of a family fishing vessel and Gina initially worked as a
fish dealer but worked as an entertainer in Japan for 2 years.
3. They lived on a house they built on a lot owned by Jacintos father. They had no children
and Gina is not received well in Jacintos family.
4. After 9 years, they decided to end their cohabitation.
5. Later, Gina filed a complaint against Jacinto for partition and recovery of personal
property
a. Complaint alleges:
i. From her salary as entertainer in Japan she contributed 70k on the
construction of their house
ii. From her salary as entertainer she was able to get personal properties
such as appliances and furniture amounting to 100k+
iii. She has two bank deposits, one of which is a joint account with Jacinto,
were used in paying for the construction
iv. Prayed for declaration as the sole owner of the personal properties and
reimbursement of her contribution to the house
b. Petitioner Answers:
i. Budget for the construction of the house was solely from his earning as
fisherman
ii. Gina didnt work in Japan continuously for 2 years but on 6-month
periods over two years.
c. Trial court declared Petitioner in default for failing to file a Pre-Trial Brief
(PTB)
d. Petitioner filed MR, denied.
e. Respondent was allowed to present evidence ex-parte. Petitioner filed another MR
after that, but was also denied
f. RTC ruled in favor of Respondent Gina.
6. Petitioner appealed to CA, denied (but removed moral damages)
a. Though not mentioned in the full text, Petitioner seems to have raised the issue of
the RTC order declaring him in default. He seems to have argued to the CA that
the old rules has no provision that allows litigants to be declared in default if a
PTB was not filed. CA said this is moot and academic since the 1997 Rules came
out, and applied it retroactively.
7. Hence, this petition

Issue: W/N CA erred in applying 1997 Rules retroactively, declaring him in default for failing
to file PTB.
Held: No, but has a different explanation.
Ratio:
First off, while the rules may be applied retroactively, it is not called for in this case.
However, the filing of a PTB is also required under a 1989 Circular (No. 1-89), which has
essentially similar to R18 S6. The rule is already in effect before the 1997 Rules.
Next, on the issue of being declared in default for failing to file a PTB, Petitioners main
contention is that his failure to do so was because he does not have a counsel, and that he did
not understand the RTC order that required him to file the PTB is without merit.
a. On the lack of counsel, the court said that it cannot hold because Petitioner chose at his
own risk not to be represented by a counsel. Lawyers are not absolutely necessary in all
cases
b. And that if it were true that he did not understand the RTC order to file a PTB, he could
have inquired to the court or file a motion for extension.
Failure to file a PTB shall have the same effect as a failure to appear at the pre-trial. The remedy
is to file an MR for failing to file one due to FAME.
Other issue: Co-ownership and property regime of marriage with legal impediment
Ruling: CA Affirmed.