G.R. No. 160239 ; November 25, 2009
ANGELINA SORIENTE and ALL OTHER PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER HER, Petitioners, vs. THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ARSENIO E. CONCEPCION, represented by NENITA S. CONCEPCION, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Nenita S. Concepcion, representing the estate of her late husband Arsenio, is the registered owner of a lot in Mandaluyong City. During Arsenio’s lifetime, petitioner Angelina Soriente was allowed to occupy the lot for free on a temporary basis. After Arsenio’s death in 1989, the family sought to develop the property. Despite verbal and written demands, including a formal demand letter in September 2000, Soriente refused to vacate. Respondent thus filed an unlawful detainer complaint before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in April 2001.
In the MeTC, Soriente did not file a separate Answer. Instead, she signed an Answer filed by a co-defendant in a separate but related ejectment case. Respondent moved for judgment based on Soriente’s failure to answer. The MeTC denied the motion, treating the signed Answer as her own due to the common defense. The cases were consolidated. During preliminary conferences, Soriente repeatedly failed to appear or send an authorized representative. Consequently, the MeTC deemed the case submitted for decision and ruled in favor of respondent, ordering Soriente to vacate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision on appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the MeTC correctly applied the Rules on Summary Procedure in rendering judgment against petitioner for failure to appear at the preliminary conference.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic centers on the proper application of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, specifically Section 7, which governs ejectment cases. The Court clarified that the rule provides for judgment when a “sole defendant” fails to appear at the preliminary conference. The petitioner argued she was not a sole defendant due to the consolidation of cases. The Court rejected this, explaining that consolidation for joint hearing does not merge the cases into one or change the status of the parties. Each case retains its separate identity. In this specific unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 17973), Soriente was the sole defendant. Her repeated non-appearance at the preliminary conference, without a valid representative, squarely invoked the sanction under Section 7. The MeTC was therefore correct in submitting the case for decision and ruling based on the evidence presented by the respondent. The respondent, as the registered owner, successfully proved her cause of action for unlawful detainer by establishing that the petitioner’s possession was by mere tolerance which had been terminated by demand. The procedural rules were correctly applied to achieve the expeditious resolution intended for ejectment suits.