678

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals
*

G.R.No.150611.June10,2003.

JACINTO SAGUID, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF

APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
94,BOAC,MARINDUQUEandGINAS.REY,respondents.
Remedial Law; PreTrial; The failure of the defendant to file a
pretrial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the
pretrial i.e. the plaintiff may present his evidence ex parte and the
court shall render judgment on the basis thereof; The remedy of the
defendant is to file a motion for reconsideration showing that his
failure to file a pretrial brief was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable neglect.Under Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of
CivilProcedure,thefailureofthedefendanttofileapretrialbrief
shallhavethesameeffectasfailuretoappearatthepretrial,i.e.,
the plaintiff may present his evidence ex parte and the court shall
renderjudgmentonthebasisthereof.Theremedyofthedefendant
istofileamotionforreconsiderationshowingthathisfailuretofile
a pretrial brief was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
neglect. The motion need not really stress the fact that the
defendant has a valid and meritorious defense because his answer
whichcontainshisdefensesisalreadyonrecord.
Same; Same; Pretrial rules are not to be belittled or dismissed
because their nonobservance may result in prejudice to a partys
substantive rights.If it were true that petitioner did not
understand the import of the April 23, 1997 order directing him to
fileapretrialbrief,hecouldhaveinquiredfromthecourtorfileda
motionforextensionoftimetofilethebrief.Instead,hewaiteduntil
May 26, 1997, or 14 days from his alleged receipt of the April 23,
1997 order before he filed a motion asking the court to excuse his
failure to file a brief. Pretrial rules are not to be belittled or
dismissedbecausetheirnonobservancemayresultinprejudicetoa
partys substantive rights. Like all rules, they should be followed
except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be
relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with
the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
procedureprescribed.
Same; Same; Fact that petitioner was not assisted by a lawyer is
not a persuasive reason to relax the application of the rules.Inthe
instantcase,thefactthatpetitionerwasnotassistedbyalawyeris
notapersuasivereasontorelaxtheapplicationoftherules.There
is nothing in the Constitution which mandates that a party in a
noncriminal proceeding be represented by counsel and that the
absence of such representation amounts to a denial of due process.
Theassistanceoflawyers,whiledesir
_______________

* FIRSTDIVISION.

679

VOL.403,JUNE10,2003

679

Saguid vs. Court of Appeals

able, is not indispensable. The legal profession is not engrafted in
the due process clause such that without the participation of its
membersthesafeguardisdeemedignoredorviolated.
Civil Law; Property; CoOwnership; Proof of actual
contribution in the acquisition of the property is essential where the
issue of coownership of properties acquired by the parties to a
bigamous marriage and an adulterous relationship is involved;
Fact that the controverted property was titled in the name of the
parties to an adulterous relationship is not sufficient proof of co
ownership absent evidence of actual contribution in the acquisition
of the property.In the cases of Agapay v. Palang, and Tumlos v.
Fernandez which involved the issue of coownership of properties
acquired by the parties to a bigamous marriage and an adulterous
relationship,respectively,weruledthatproofofactualcontribution
in the acquisition of the property is essential. The claim of co
ownership of the petitioners therein who were parties to the
bigamousandadulterousunioniswithoutbasisbecausetheyfailed
to substantiate their allegation that they contributed money in the
purchase of the disputed properties. Also in Adriano v. Court of
Appeals, we ruled that the fact that the controverted property was
titledinthenameofthepartiestoanadulterousrelationshipisnot
sufficient proof of coownership absent evidence of actual
contributionintheacquisitionoftheproperty.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
The Law Firm of Andrew M. Magturoforpetitioner.
Public Attorneys Officeforrespondent.
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
The regime of limited coownership of property governing
the union of parties who are not legally capacitated to
marry each other, but who nonetheless live together as
husbandandwife,appliestopropertiesacquiredduringsaid
cohabitationinproportiontotheirrespectivecontributions.
Coownership will only be up to the extent of the proven
actualcontributionofmoney,propertyorindustry.Absent
proof of the extent thereof, their contributions
and
1
correspondingsharesshallbepresumedtobeequal.
_______________
1FamilyCode,Article148;Agapay

v. Palang,342 Phil. 302, 311312;

276SCRA340(1997),citingTolentino,I Civil Code Of The Philippines

680

680

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals
2

SeventeenyearoldGinaS.Reywasmarried, butseparated
de factofromherhusband,whenshemetpetitionerJacinto
3
Saguid in Marinduque, sometime in July 1987. After a
briefcourtship,thetwodecidedtocohabitashusbandand4
wife in a house built on a lot owned by Jacintos father.
Their cohabitation was not blessed with any children.
Jacinto made a living
as the patron of their fishing vessel
5
Saguid Brothers. Gina, on the other hand, worked as a
fishdealer,butdecidedtoworkasanentertainerinJapan
from 1992 to 1994 when her relationship with Jacintos
relatives turned sour. Her periodic absence, however, did
notebbawaytheconflictwithpetitionersrelatives.In1996,
the couple decided
to separate and end up their 9year
6
cohabitation.
OnJanuary9,1997,privaterespondentfiledacomplaint
for Partition and Recovery of Personal Property with
ReceivershipagainstthepetitionerwiththeRegionalTrial
Court of Boac, Marinduque. She alleged that from her
salary of $1,500.00 a month as entertainer in Japan, she
wasabletocontributeP70,000.00inthecompletionoftheir
unfinished house. Also, from her own earnings as an
entertainer and fish dealer, she was able to acquire and
accumulate appliances, pieces of furniture and household
effects, with a total value of P111,375.00. She prayed that
shebedeclaredthesoleownerofthesepersonalproperties
and that the amount of P70,000.00, representing her
contribution to the construction of their house, be
reimbursedtoher.
Private respondent testified that she deposited part of
her earnings in her
savings account with First Allied
7
DevelopmentBank. Her Pass Book shows that
as of May
8
23, 1995, she had a balance of P21,046.08. She further
statedthatshehadatotalof
_______________
Commentaries and Jurisprudence, 500 (1999 edition); Tumlos v.
Fernandez, G.R. No. 137650, 12 April 2000, 330 SCRA 718, 733734,
citing Agapay v. Palang, supra; Adriano v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil.
474,484485;326SCRA738(2000).
2

Exhibit A, Marriage Contract showing that Gina S. Rey was

marriedattheageof15toEduardoV.SalazaronJune19,1985.
3Complaint,Records,p.7.
4Id.,atp.8.
5Answer,Records,p.21.
6Complaint,p.8.
7TSN,20January1998,pp.57.
8ExhibitK.

681

VOL.403,JUNE10,2003
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals

681

P35,465.00 share in the joint account deposit which

she
10
and the petitioner maintained with the same bank. Gina
declared that said deposits were spent for the purchase of
construction
materials, appliances and other personal
11
properties.
12
Inhisanswer tothecomplaint,petitionerclaimedthat
the expenses for the construction of their house were
defrayedsolelyfromhisincomeasacaptainoftheirfishing
vessel.Heaverredthatprivaterespondentsmeagerincome
as fish dealer rendered her unable to contribute in the
constructionofsaidhouse.Besides,sellingfishwasamere
pastime to her; as such, she was contented with the small
quantity of fish allotted to her from his fishing trips.
Petitioner further contended that Gina did not work
continuouslyinJapanfrom1992to1994,butonlyfora6
monthdurationeachyear.Whentheirhousewasrepaired
and improved sometime in 19951996, private respondent
did not share in the expenses because her earnings as
entertainer were spent on the daily needs and business of
her parents. From his income in the fishing business, he
claimedtohavesavedatotalofP130,000.00,P75,000.00of
which was placed in a joint account deposit with private
respondent.Thissavings,accordingtopetitionerwasspent
inpurchasingthedisputedpersonalproperties.
OnMay21,1997,thetrialcourtdeclaredthepetitioner
asindefaultforfailuretofileapretrialbriefasrequiredby
13
SupremeCourtCircularNo.189.
On May 26,
1997, petitioner filed a motion for
14
reconsideration of the May 21, 1997 order, which was
deniedonJune2,1997,andprivaterespondentwasallowed
15
to present evidence ex parte. Petitioner filed another
motionforreconsiderationbutthesamewasalsodeniedon
October8,1997.
16
On July 15, 1998, a decision was rendered in favor of
privaterespondent,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
_______________
9TSN,20January1998,pp.1618.
10 Exhibit L, First Allied Development Bank Golden Account Pass

Book.
11TSN,20January1998,pp.56and910.
12Records,p.19.
13Records,p.41.
14Records,p.46.
15Records,p.53.
16PennedbyJudgeRodolfoB.Dimaano.

682

682

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of the plaintiff Gina S. Rey against defendant
JacintoSaguid:
a) Ordering the partition of the house identified as plaintiff s

Exhibit C and D and directing the defendant to return

and/or reimburse to the plaintiff the amount of seventy
thousand pesos (P70,000.00) which the latter actually
contributedtoitsconstructionandcompletion;
b) Declaring the plaintiff as the exclusive owner of the
personalpropertieslistedonExhibitM;
c) Orderingthedefendant,and/oranyoneinpossessionofthe
aforesaid personal properties, to return and/or deliver the
sametotheplaintiff;and
d) Orderingthedefendanttopaytheplaintiffmoraldamages
in the sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) plus the
costsofsuit.
17

SOORDERED.

On appeal, said decision was affirmed by the Court of

Appeals; however, the award of P50,000.00
as moral
18
damageswasdeletedforlackofbasis. Theappellatecourt
ruled that the propriety of the order which declared the
petitionerasindefaultbecamemootandacademicinview
of the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It
explainedthatthenewrulesnowrequirethefilingofapre
trial brief and the defendants noncompliance therewith
entitlestheplaintifftopresentevidenceex parte.
Bothpartiesfiledmotionsforreconsiderationwhichwere
denied;hence,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetitionbasedon
thefollowingassignederrors:
A.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMIT[TED] A
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN APPLYING RETROACTIVELY THE
1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE PRESENT CASE
AND HOLDING THE FIRST ASSIGNED ERROR THEREIN
MOOT AND ACADEMIC THUS, FAILED TO RULE ON THE
PROPRIETYOFTHETRIALCOURTSREFUSALTOSETASIDE
THE ORDER OF DEFAULT DUE TO MISTAKE AND/OR
EXCUSABLENEGLIGENCECOMMITTEDBYPETITIONER.
_______________
17Records,p.92.
18CAG.R.CVNo.64166,pennedbyAssociateJusticePerlitaJ.Tria

TironaandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesEugenioS.Labitoriaand
EloyR.Bello,Jr.
683

VOL.403,JUNE10,2003

683

Saguid vs. Court of Appeals

B.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMIT[TED] A
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RELYING ON THE FACTUAL
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH RECEIVED THE
19
EVIDENCEOFHEREINRESPONDENTONLYEX PARTE.

The issues for resolution are: (1) whether or not the trial

court erred in allowing private respondent to present

evidence ex parte; and (2) whether or not the trial courts
decisionissupportedbyevidence.
Under Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, the failure of the defendant to file a pretrial
briefshallhavethesameeffectasfailuretoappearatthe
pretrial,i.e.,theplaintiffmaypresenthisevidenceex parte
20
andthecourtshallrenderjudgmentonthebasisthereof.
The remedy of
the defendant is to file a motion for
21
reconsideration showing that his failure to file a pretrial
brief was
due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
22
neglect. Themotionneednotreallystressthefactthatthe
defendanthasavalidandmeritoriousdefensebecausehis
23
answerwhichcontainshisdefensesisalreadyonrecord.
Inthecaseatbar,petitionerinsiststhathisfailuretofile
apretrialbriefisjustifiedbecausehewasnotrepresented
by counsel. This justification is not, however, sufficient to
set aside the order directing private respondent to present
evidenceex parte, inasmuch as the petitioner chose at his
ownrisknottoberepresentedbycounsel.Evenwithoutthe
assistanceofalawyer,petitionerwas
_______________
19Rollo,p.20.
20 Rule 18,

SEC. 5. Effect of failure to appear.The failure of the

plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding

sectionshallbecausefordismissaloftheaction.Thedismissalshallbe
withprejudice,unlessotherwiseorderedbythecourt.Asimilarfailure
on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to
present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the
basisthereof.
21Jungco

v. Court of Appeals,G.R.No.78051,8November1989,179

SCRA213,217218,citingLucero v. Dacayo,131Phil.99;22 SCRA 1004

(1968).
22 Circle

Financial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77315,

22April1991,196SCRA166,170.
23Junco

v. Court of Appeals,supra,note24at218.
684

684

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals
24

able to file a motion for extension to file answer, the

requiredanswerstatingthereinthespecialandaffirmative
25
26
defenses, andseveralothermotions. Ifitweretruethat
petitioner did not understand the import of the April 23,
1997 order directing him to file a pretrial brief, he could
haveinquiredfromthecourtorfiledamotionforextension
of time to file the brief. Instead, he waited until May 26,
1997, or 14 days from his alleged receipt of the April 23,
1997 order before he filed a motion asking the court to
excusehisfailuretofileabrief.Pretrialrulesarenottobe
belittled or dismissed because their nonobservance may
result in prejudice to a partys substantive rights. Like all
rules, they should be followed except only for the most
persuasiveofreasonswhentheymayberelaxedtorelievea

litigantofaninjusticenotcommensuratewiththedegreeof
his thoughtlessness
in not complying with the procedure
27
prescribed.
In the instant case, the fact that petitioner was not
assistedbyalawyerisnotapersuasivereasontorelaxthe
applicationoftherules.ThereisnothingintheConstitution
whichmandatesthatapartyinanoncriminalproceeding
be represented by counsel and that the absence of such
representation amounts to a denial of due process. The
assistanceoflawyers,whiledesirable,isnotindispensable.
The legal profession is not engrafted in the due process
clause such that without the participation28of its members
thesafeguardisdeemedignoredorviolated.
However, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the
effectivityofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,specifically,
Section6,Rule18thereof,renderedmootandacademicthe
issue of whether or not the plaintiff may be allowed to
presentevidenceex parteforfailureofthedefendanttofilea
pretrial brief. While the rules may indeed be applied
retroactively, the same is not called for in the case at bar.
Evenbeforethe1997RulesofCivilProceduretookeffecton
July1,1997,thefilingofapretrialbriefwasrequired
_______________
24Records,p.16.
25Id.,p.19.
26Records,pp.44,46and54.
27 Victory

Liner, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125034, 30 July

1998,293SCRA378,384,citingPedrosa v. Hill,327Phil.153;257SCRA
373(1996).
28 Nera

v. Auditor General, G.R. No. L24957, 3 August 1988, 164

SCRA1,6.
685

VOL.403,JUNE10,2003

685

Saguid vs. Court of Appeals

under Circular No. 189 which became effective on
February1,1989.Pursuanttothesaidcircular,[f]ailureto
file pretrial briefs may be given the same effect as the
failuretoappearatthepretrial,thatis,thepartymaybe
29
declarednonsuitedorconsideredasindefault.
Coming now to the substantive issue, it is not disputed
that Gina and Jacinto were not capacitated to marry each
other because the former was validly married to another
man at the time of her cohabitation with the latter.
Their
30
propertyregimethereforeisgovernedbyArticle148 ofthe
FamilyCode,whichappliesto
_______________
29Section2,Rule20oftheoldrules.
30 Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under [Article 147],

onlythepropertiesacquiredbybothofthepartiesthroughtheiractual
joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by
themincommoninproportiontotheirrespectivecontributions.Inthe

absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding

sharesarepresumedtobeequal.Thesameruleandpresumptionshall
applytojointdepositsofmoneyandevidencesofcredit.
Ifoneofthepartiesisvalidlymarriedtoanother,hisorhersharein
the coownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal
partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in
bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her share shall be
forfeitedinthemannerprovidedinthelastparagraphofthepreceding
Article.
Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry
eachotherliveexclusivelywitheachotherashusbandandwifewithout
the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and
salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property
acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be
governedbytherulesoncoownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while
they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their
joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal
shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in
the acquisition of the other party of any property shall be deemed to
havecontributedjointlyintheacquisitionthereofiftheformersefforts
consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the
household.
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or
her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in
common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination
ofthecohabitation.
686

686

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals

bigamousmarriages,adulterousrelationships,relationships
inastateofconcubinage,relationshipswherebothmanand
womanaremarriedtootherpersons,andmultiplealliances
ofthesamemarriedman.Underthisregime,...onlythe
properties acquired by both of the parties through their
actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry
shall be owned by them in31common in proportion to their
respectivecontributions...
Proofofactualcontributionis
32
required.
Inthecaseatbar,althoughtheadulterouscohabitation
ofthepartiescommencedin1987,whichisbeforethedateof
theeffectivityoftheFamilyCodeonAugust3,1998,Article
148 thereof applies because this provision was intended
precisely
to fill up the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil
33
Code. BeforeArticle148oftheFamilyCodewasenacted,
there was no provision governing property relations of
coupleslivinginastateofadulteryorconcubinage.Hence,
even if the cohabitation or the acquisition of the property
occurred34before the Family Code took effect, Article 148
governs.
35
In the 36cases of Agapay v. Palang, and Tumlos v.
Fernandez which involved the issue of coownership of
properties acquired by the parties to a bigamous marriage
andanadulterousrelationship,respectively,weruledthat
proofofactualcontributionintheac

_______________
Whenonlyoneofthepartiestoavoidmarriageisingoodfaith,the
share of the party in bad faith in the coownership shall be forfeited in
favoroftheircommonchildren.Incaseofdefaultorofwaiverbyanyor
all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share
shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of
descendants,suchshareshallbelongtotheinnocentparty.Inallcases,
theforfeitureshalltakeplaceuponterminationofthecohabitation.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both
partiesareinbadfaith.
31 Cario

v. Cario, G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001, 351 SCRA

127,135.
32Agapay
33

v. Palang,supra,note1.

Tumlos v. Fernandez, supra, note 1, at 733, citing SempioDy,

Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines,1997ed.,p.228;Vitug,

Compendium on Civil Law and Jurisprudence,1993ed.,pp.210211.
34Tumlos

v. Fernandez,supra,citingtheFamilyCode,Article 256.

35Supra,note1.
36Supra,note1.

687

VOL.403,JUNE10,2003

687

Saguid vs. Court of Appeals

quisition of the property is essential. The claim of co
ownershipofthepetitionersthereinwhowerepartiestothe
bigamous and adulterous union is without basis because
they failed to substantiate their allegation that they
contributed money in the purchase of the
disputed
37
properties. Also in Adriano v.Court of Appeals, we ruled
thatthefactthatthecontrovertedpropertywastitledinthe
name of the parties to an adulterous relationship is not
sufficient proof of coownership absent evidence of actual
contributionintheacquisitionoftheproperty.
Asinothercivilcases,theburdenofproofrestsuponthe
partywho,asdeterminedbythepleadingsorthenatureof
thecase,assertsanaffirmativeissue.Contentionsmustbe
provedbycompetentevidenceandreliancemustbehadon
the strength of the partys own evidence
and not upon the
38
weaknessoftheopponentsdefense. Thisapplieswithmore
vigorwhere,asintheinstantcase,theplaintiffwasallowed
to present evidence ex parte. The plaintiff is not
automaticallyentitledtothereliefprayedfor.Thelawgives
the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff
muststillprovetheallegationsinthecomplaint.Favorable
reliefcanbegrantedonlyafterthecourtisconvincedthat
39
the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief.
Indeed,thepartyallegingafacthastheburdenofproving
40
itandamereallegationisnotevidence.
Inthecaseatbar,thecontroversycentersonthehouse
and personal properties of the parties. Private respondent
allegedinhercomplaintthatshecontributedP70,000.00for
the completion of their house. However, nowhere in her
testimony did she specify the extent of her contribution.
Whatappearsintherecordarere

_______________
37Supra,note1.
38 Heirs

of Anastacio Fabela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142546, 9

August2001,362SCRA531, citing Javier v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

101177, 28 March 1994, 231 SCRA 498; Pornellosa v. Land Tenure
Administration,110Phil.986;1SCRA375(1961).
39 Luxuria

Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 989, 1001; 302

SCRA 315 (1999), citing Pascua v. Florendo, 220 Phil. 588; 136 SCRA
208(1985);Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, G.R. No. L40098, 29 August 1975,
66SCRA425.
40 Id., citing P.T.

Cerna Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

91622,6April1993,221SCRA19.
688

688

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Saguid vs. Court of Appeals
41

ceipts in her name for the purchase of construction

materialsonNovember17,1995andDecember23,1995,in
thetotalamountofP11,413.00.
On the other hand, both parties claim that the money
used to purchase the disputed personal properties came
partly from their joint account with First Allied
Development Bank. While there is no question that both
parties contributed in their joint account deposit, there is,
however, no sufficient proof of the exact amount of their
respective shares therein. Pursuant to Article 148 of the
FamilyCode,intheabsenceofproofofextentoftheparties
respectivecontribution,theirshareshallbepresumedtobe
equal.Here,thedisputedpersonalpropertieswerevaluedat
P111,375.00, the existence and value of which were not
questioned by the petitioner. Hence, their share therein is
equivalenttoonehalf,i.e.,P55,687.50each.
TheCourtofAppealsthuserredinaffirmingthedecision
of the trial court which granted the reliefs prayed for by
privaterespondent.Onthebasisoftheevidenceestablished,
the extent of private respondents coownership over the
disputedhouseisonlyuptotheamountofP11,413.00,her
proven contribution in the construction thereof. Anent the
personal properties, her participation therein should be
limitedonlytotheamountofP55,687.50.
AsregardsthetrialcourtsawardofP50,000.00asmoral
damages, the Court of Appeals correctly deleted the same
forlackofbasis.
WHEREFORE,inviewofalltheforegoing,theDecision
of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 64166 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Private respondent
Gina S. Rey is declared coowner of petitioner Jacinto
Saguid in the controverted house to the extent of
P11,413.00 and personal properties to the extent of
P55,687.50. Petitioner is ordered to reimburse the amount
ofP67,100.50toprivaterespondent,failingwhichthehouse
shallbesoldatpublicauctiontosatisfyprivaterespondents
claim.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Vitug, Carpio and

Azcuna, JJ.,concur.
_______________
41ExhibitsO,O1andO2.

689

VOL.403,JUNE10,2003

689

Saguid vs. Court of Appeals

Judgment affirmed with modification.
Note.Pretrial and its governing rules are not
technicalities which parties may ignore or trifle with. (Tiu
vs. Middleton,310SCRA580[1999])
o0o
690

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.