G.R. No. 216748, July 25, 2018
Department of Education, Petitioner, vs. Nixon Q. Dela Torre, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land. On December 8, 1979, Maria Pencerga executed a Deed of Donation in favor of the Poblacion Cabanglasan Elementary School, a public school under the Department of Education (DepEd). Decades later, on February 23, 2001, respondents, led by Nixon Dela Torre, filed a civil case for recovery of possession, claiming co-ownership of the land based on a subsequent sale executed by Maria Pencerga in Nixon’s favor on January 5, 1988. The school was initially represented by a legal consultant, Atty. Conrado Barroso. After his consultancy expired, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance and deputized the City Prosecutor to handle the case.
The procedural history is critical. Despite the OSG’s entry, the presentation of the school’s evidence faced repeated setbacks. Hearings were reset multiple times due to the prosecutor’s absence or unreadiness, attributed to the failure of the former counsel, Atty. Barroso, to turn over case records. After years of delays and warnings from the trial court, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an order on January 24, 2008, declaring that the school had waived its right to present evidence and submitted the case for decision. The RTC subsequently ruled in favor of respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s declaration that the petitioner waived its right to present evidence and in finding that respondents have a better right to possess the subject property.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed rulings. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the petitioner was properly represented and was therefore bound by the negligence of its counsel. The OSG, as the principal counsel, deputized the City Prosecutor as a surrogate. The OSG’s power to deputize does not diminish its role as the primary counsel responsible for monitoring the case. The Court cited the rule that the OSG remains the principal counsel entitled to be furnished copies of all court orders and notices. The records showed the RTC granted the school more than seven years to present its evidence after respondents rested their case. The OSG’s explanation—that the failure was due to the former counsel not turning over records—was deemed unacceptable, as the OSG had the duty to supervise and ensure the deputized prosecutor’s preparedness. The waiver was thus proper.
Consequently, with the petitioner having waived its right to present evidence, it could not refute the evidence presented by the respondents. The RTC and the CA correctly relied on the respondents’ evidence, which established their claim of ownership derived from the 1988 sale. Therefore, the finding that respondents have a better right to possession stands. The Court also found no merit in the petitioner’s claim of laches against the respondents, as the petitioner’s own procedural default was the primary cause for the adverse judgment.