Private respondent, Gina S.

Rey, a married woman but separated de facto from her husband, cohabited
with petitioner, Jacinto Saguid, after a brief courtship after meeting each other sometime in July 1987.
On the part of the petitioner, he made a living as the patron of their fishing vessel “Saguid Brothers” and
anent the respondent, worked as a fish dealer, but decided to work as an entertainer in Japan from 1992
to 1994. During these times that respondent’s relationship with the petitioner’s relatives turned sour
and in 1996, the couple decided to separate and end up their 9 year cohabitation.

On January 9, 1997, private respondent filed a complaint for Partition and Recovery of Personal Property
with Receivership against the petitioner with the RTC. She alleged that from her salary of $1,500.00 a
month as entertainer in Japan, she was able to contribute P70k in the completion of their 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. She
prayed that she be declared the sole owner of these personal properties and that the amount of P70K,
representing her contribution to the construction of their house, be reimbursed to her. As evidence, she
presented her bank account and their joint account with the petitioner where her deposits were spent
for the purchase of construction materials, appliances, and etc.

Anent the petitioner’s answer, he claimed that the expenses for the construction of their house were
defrayed solely from his income as a captain of their fishing vessel, that private respondent's income as
fish dealer makes her unable to contribute in the construction of said house, and that the respondent’s
work in Japan was not continuous, but only for a 6-month duration each year and her earnings from it
were spent only on the daily needs and businesses of her parents. From his income in the fishing
business, he claimed to have saved a total of P130k, P75k of which was placed in a joint account deposit
with private respondent. This savings, according to petitioner was spent in purchasing the disputed
personal properties.

On May 21, 1997, the trial court declared the petitioner as in default for failure to file a pre- trial brief as
required by Supreme Court Circular No. 1-89. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and was
denied and the private respondent was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The trial court soon made
a decision in favour of the respondent. On appeal, the said decision was affirmed by the CA but with
modification of the deletion of the 50k moral damages.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not the trial court erred in allowing private respondent to present evidence ex part

(2) Whether or not the trial court's decision is supported by evidence

Ruling: 1. No, this is irrelevant to the topic but the SC ruled that the justification of the petitioner here
that he was not represented by a lawyer for the filing of the pre-trial where he was declared in default is
not accepted by the SC for it is his own volition that exposed him to the risk of being declared in default.
Furthermore, he has filed a motion to extend and has portrayed his capability to ask the court a motion
for extension for the filing in the pre-trial. This act cannot justify his negligence and therefore, the Trial
court’s decision of declaring him in default is correct.

2. The SC ruled that article 148 of the FC applies to the case at bar despite the commencement of the
cohabitation started before the FC because the said article fills the hiatus of the CC where there is no
provision on properties of couples in a state of adultery or concubinage. That being so, the evidence
presented only shows that the respondent has contributed to an extent of 11,413, as evidenced by her
receipts despite her claim that she contributed 70k for the completion of their house. But 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 Family Code, in the absence of proof of extent of the
parties' respective contribution, their share shall be presumed to be equal. Here, the disputed personal
properties were valued at P111,375 , the existence and value of which were not questioned by the
petitioner. Hence, their share therein is equivalent to one- half, i.e., P55,687.50 each. The SC affirmed
with modification as to the sharing of the properties.