The mere absence of a defendant's counsel during pre-trial, when the defendant himself is present, does not automatically warrant allowing the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte under the then-applicable Rules of Court (prior to A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC); procedural rules may be relaxed to prevent manifest injustice and uphold the right to due process. Furthermore, in an action to recover possession (accion reivindicatoria), the plaintiff bears the burden of clearly identifying the property sought to be recovered and relying on the strength of their own title, not the weakness of the defendant's claim.

The dispute centers on a parcel of land located at 156 Session Road, Woodcrest Homes, Talanav, Area B, Batasan Hills, Quezon City. Petitioner Gemina claims ownership and possession since 1978 based on a purported purchase, presenting various documents like deeds, tax declarations, and permits. Respondents, the Heirs of Espejo, assert co-ownership based on a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. RIV786U [93809]) in the names of Gerardo V. Espejo, Jr. and Nenafe V. Espejo, and demanded Gemina vacate the property.

• Petitioner Patricio G. Gemina claimed he purchased, occupied, and possessed the subject property located at 156 Session Road, Woodcrest Homes, Talanav, Area B, Batasan Hills, Quezon City, since 1978, presenting evidence including a Deed of Absolute Sale (Quitclaim) dated 1978, pictures of trees he planted, a Building Permit, tax declarations, Real Property Tax Receipts, TCT No. 252774 in the vendor's name, a 1995 Deed of Conditional Sale with the vendor, and homeowners association documents.
• Respondents, the Heirs of Gerardo V. Espejo, Jr. and Nenafe V. Espejo, claimed co-ownership based on TCT No. RIV786U (93809) and Tax Declaration No. B-139-03384, both in the names of Gerardo V. Espejo, Jr. (deceased 1975) and Nenafe V. Espejo. They presented documents proving their relation to Gerardo (marriage certificate, birth certificates, death certificate) and the TCT.
• In 2004, respondents demanded Gemina vacate the property; Gemina refused.
• Respondents initially filed an unlawful detainer case but withdrew it, later filing the present action for recovery of possession (accion reivindicatoria) in the RTC.
• During the scheduled pre-trial, Gemina was present, but his counsel failed to attend. The RTC reset the pre-trial for the last time.
• Gemina's counsel again failed to attend the rescheduled pre-trial. The RTC, in its November 26, 2012 Order, allowed the respondents (plaintiffs) to present their evidence ex parte.
• Gemina's counsel filed a Withdrawal of Counsel with an attached Motion for Reconsideration of the ex parte order, citing health reasons and lack of notice of hearing. The RTC granted the withdrawal but denied the reconsideration motion as a mere scrap of paper for lacking a notice of hearing.
• Gemina, through the PAO, filed another Motion for Reconsideration, arguing lack of personal notice, which was denied by the RTC. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.
• The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents based on their TCT and preponderance of evidence, ordering Gemina to vacate and pay damages.
• The CA affirmed the RTC decision with modifications regarding interest rates and attorney's fees, upholding the ex parte presentation order and finding the property sufficiently identified.

• The trial court and CA erred in allowing ex parte presentation of respondents' evidence solely based on the absence of petitioner's counsel during pre-trial, especially since petitioner himself was present, violating his right to due process.
• Rule 18, Section 5 of the Rules of Court (prior to amendment) should be interpreted to require the absence of the party (defendant), not just the counsel, to trigger ex parte presentation.
• The rule on pro forma motions (requiring notice of hearing) applies only to final orders, not interlocutory orders like the one allowing ex parte presentation; thus, the motion for reconsideration should not have been dismissed outright.
• Even if defective, the lack of notice of hearing in the motion for reconsideration was cured because the respondents were able to file their Comment/Opposition, satisfying the purpose of due process.
• Respondents failed to sufficiently prove the identity of the specific land they sought to recover, as required by Article 434 of the Civil Code, relying merely on the technical description in the TCT and an affidavit without a survey plan or other conclusive proof.
• The fallo of the RTC decision described a property in Garland Subdivision, creating ambiguity regarding the actual subject property (Woodcrest Homes).
• Petitioner was compelled to litigate and should be awarded attorney's fees.

• The Petition should be dismissed for procedural flaws (initially argued failure to attach certified true copies, later countered by petitioner).
• The trial court correctly allowed the ex parte presentation of evidence due to the failure of petitioner's counsel to appear at the pre-trial, as mandated by the Rules of Court.
• Petitioner's motion for reconsideration challenging the ex parte order was correctly denied for being pro forma due to the lack of a notice of hearing, a mandatory requirement under Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5.
• The issue of insufficient identity of the property was raised for the first time on appeal and should be deemed waived.
• The identity of the property was sufficiently established through the technical description in TCT 93809 and the testimony of Ma. Teresa R. Espejo.
• Respondents, possessing a Torrens title (TCT 93809), have a better right to possession over petitioner's self-serving claims and documents.

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order allowing the respondents to present evidence ex parte due to the non-appearance of petitioner's counsel during pre-trial, despite the petitioner's presence.
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the ruling against the petitioner despite the alleged failure of the respondents to sufficiently prove the identity of the property sought to be recovered.

• The Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
• The Court ruled that the trial court erred in allowing the ex parte presentation of evidence solely based on the absence of Gemina's counsel, given that Gemina himself was present at the pre-trial. Citing Paredes v. Verano, the Court emphasized that under the rules then applicable, such absence of counsel did not ipso facto authorize ex parte presentation; a stringent application of procedural rules should not subvert substantive justice, especially when other remedies (like citing counsel for contempt) were available.
• The Court also held that the motion for reconsideration filed by Gemina's original counsel, though lacking a formal notice of hearing, should not have been dismissed outright as pro forma, particularly since the opposing party (respondents) had the opportunity to be heard by filing an opposition, thereby curing the defect and satisfying due process requirements, citing Preyslers Jr. v. Manila Southcoast Development Corp.
• The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the identity of the property. It held that reliance solely on the technical description in the TCT and a judicial affidavit was insufficient. Article 434 requires clear identification, often established through survey plans. The ambiguity created by the discrepancy in the property description between the body of the decision and the fallo further necessitated clarification.
• Given the denial of due process and the unresolved issue of property identity, the Court deemed it just and equitable to remand the case, allowing Gemina to present his evidence and enabling the RTC to properly ascertain the facts, including the precise identity of the property and the superior right of possession based on all evidence presented.

• Due Process: Definition: A fundamental right ensuring fairness and the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. Application: The Court found Gemina was denied due process when prevented from presenting evidence due to his counsel's absence at pre-trial (despite his own presence) and the summary dismissal of his motion for reconsideration.
• Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules: Definition: Procedural rules may be relaxed when their strict application would result in manifest injustice, prioritizing substantive rights over technicalities. Application: Applied to excuse the procedural lapse of counsel's non-appearance at pre-trial and the lack of notice of hearing in the motion for reconsideration, as strict adherence would unjustly deprive Gemina of his property without a full hearing.
• Rules on Pre-trial (Rule 18, Sections 4 & 5, prior to A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC): Definition: Mandates appearance of parties and counsel at pre-trial; outlines consequences of non-appearance (dismissal for plaintiff, ex parte presentation for defendant). Application: Interpreted, following Paredes, that the rule (as then worded) allowing ex parte presentation upon defendant's failure to appear did not automatically apply if only the counsel was absent but the party was present. The subsequent amendment clarified that both party and counsel must be absent.
• Rules on Motions (Rule 15, Sections 4 & 5): Definition: Requires motions, particularly those seeking affirmative relief like reconsideration, to contain a notice of hearing addressed to all parties. Application: While acknowledging the requirement, the Court held, citing Preyslers, that the lack of notice is cured if the adverse party had the opportunity to oppose the motion (filed an opposition), thus satisfying due process.
• Action to Recover Property (Accion Reivindicatoria) / Article 434, Civil Code: Definition: An action where the plaintiff alleges ownership and seeks recovery of possession of real property requires the plaintiff to prove: (1) the identity of the property claimed; and (2) the strength of their own title. Application: The Court found respondents' proof of identity (TCT description, affidavit) potentially insufficient and noted the plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's claim. The ambiguity in the RTC decision also highlighted failure in proper identification.
• Torrens Title Indefeasibility: Definition: A Torrens title serves as indefeasible and incontrovertible evidence of ownership in favor of the person whose name appears therein. Application: While acknowledged by the RTC and CA as favoring respondents, the SC emphasized this doesn't negate the requirement under Art. 434 to properly identify the specific property being claimed in the recovery action.

• "When the party-defendant is present, the absence of his counsel during pre-trial shall not ipso facto result in the plaintiffs ex parte presentation of evidence."
• "In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim." (Quoting Article 434, Civil Code)
• "A stringent construction of the rales in which a court rules based on technicalities should not be the norm."
• "Indeed, the procedural rules may be liberally applied in order to relieve the party-litigant of injustice which is incomparable to the thoughtlessness of non-compliance with the rules."
• "The ends of justice, fairness and equity will be best served if both parties are heard with their evidence and the controversies are settled on the merits and not on mere technicalities of the law."

• Paredes v. Verano, 535 Phil. 274 (2006): Cited as controlling precedent for the interpretation that the absence of defendant's counsel (when defendant is present) at pre-trial does not automatically warrant allowing plaintiff's ex parte presentation of evidence under the then-prevailing Rule 18, Section 5.
• Preyslers Jr. v. Manila Southcoast Development Corp., 635 Phil. 598 (2010): Cited to support the ruling that the lack of notice of hearing in a motion for reconsideration is cured when the adverse party was afforded the opportunity to be heard (e.g., filed an opposition), thereby satisfying due process.
• Carbonilla v. Abiera, 639 Phil. 473 (2010): Cited for the principle that the registered owner must pursue the proper judicial remedy and comply with the requisites of the chosen action (like accion reivindicatoria) to recover possession from an actual occupant.
• Notarte v. Notarte, 693 Phil. 534 (2012): Cited regarding the requirement of identifying the disputed land in an action to recover, stating it may be established through a survey plan.
• Curammeng v. People, 799 Phil. 575 (2016): Cited generally for the principle of liberal application of procedural rules to avoid injustice.
• Cortal v. Inaki Larrabal Enterprises, 817 Phil. 464 (2017): Cited for the principle that rigid application of procedural rules should not result in straight-jacketing the administration of justice.
• Kent v. Micarez, 560 Phil. 475 (2011): Cited for the principle that ends of justice are best served when cases are decided on merits after both parties are heard.
• Daaco v. Yu, 761 Phil. 161 (2015): Cited for the general purpose of pre-trial (simplification, abbreviation, expedition).

• Civil Code, Article 434: Explicitly cited and applied regarding the two requirements in an action to recover property: identification of the property and reliance on the strength of plaintiff's title.
• Rules of Court, Rule 18 (Pre-trial), Section 4: Cited regarding the mandatory appearance of parties and counsel at pre-trial.
• Rules of Court, Rule 18 (Pre-trial), Section 5 (prior to A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC): Interpreted regarding the consequence of non-appearance at pre-trial, specifically that counsel's absence alone (party present) did not trigger ex parte presentation.
• Rules of Court, Rule 18 (Pre-trial), Section 5 (as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC): Mentioned to show the clarification that failure of both defendant and counsel to appear allows ex parte presentation.
• Rules of Court, Rule 15 (Motions), Sections 4 and 5: Cited regarding the requirement of notice of hearing for motions, but its mandatory nature was tempered by due process considerations (opportunity to oppose).
• Rules of Court, Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court), Section 4: Mentioned concerning procedural requirements for attaching documents to the petition.