G.R. No. 232682 , September 13, 2021
Patricio G. Gemina, and All Other Persons Claiming Rights Under Him, Petitioners, vs. Heirs of Gerardo V. Espejo, Jr., namely: Ma. Teresa R. Espejo, Jaime Gerardo Francisco R. Espejo, and Rhodora Patrice R. Espejo, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, Ma. Teresa R. Espejo, and Nenafe V. Espejo, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a property located at 156 Session Road, Woodcrest Homes, Talanav, Area B, Batasan Hills, Quezon City. Petitioner Patricio G. Gemina claimed ownership and possession since 1978, presenting documents including a Deed of Absolute Sale (Quitclaim) dated May 16, 1978, a Building Permit, Tax Declarations, Real Property Tax Receipts, and a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 252774 in the name of his vendor, Ana De Guia San Pedro. Respondents, the Heirs of Gerardo V. Espejo, Jr. and Nenafe V. Espejo, asserted co-ownership based on TCT No. RIV786U (93809) in the names of Gerardo and Nenafe, with a corresponding Tax Declaration. After Gerardo’s death in 1975, his heirs demanded that Gemina vacate the property. Upon Gemina’s refusal, the heirs filed a complaint for recovery of possession.
During pre-trial, Gemina’s counsel repeatedly failed to appear. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) allowed the respondents to present evidence ex parte. Gemina’s counsel filed a Withdrawal of Counsel with Attached Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC granted in part, allowing the withdrawal but denying the motion for reconsideration for lack of a notice of hearing. The ex parte presentation proceeded. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, finding they had a better right to possession based on their Torrens title. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with modifications to the interest rate and deletion of attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s order allowing the respondents to present evidence ex parte and in ruling that the respondents established a better right to possession over the subject property.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the trial court did not err in allowing ex parte presentation of evidence due to Gemina’s counsel’s failure to attend pre-trial despite notice. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by his counsel was a mere scrap of paper for lack of a mandatory notice of hearing. On the merits, the Court ruled that in an action for recovery of possession, the plaintiff must prove the identity of the property and the strength of his own title. The respondents sufficiently established the identity through the technical description in TCT No. 93809 and testimony. Their title, evidenced by the Torrens title (TCT No. 93809), was superior to Gemina’s claim, which was based on a different TCT (No. 252774) and unregistered documents. A Torrens title is indefeasible and incontrovertible. The respondents, as heirs and co-owners, proved a better right to possession. The modifications by the Court of Appeals on the interest rate and attorney’s fees were sustained.