G.R. No. 194751 - AURORA N. DE PEDRO, VS. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly the Court declares as a nullity the following titles and Free Patents issued to the Defendants. Defendant Nora Jocson married to Carlito Jocson OCT No. P-723; Free Patent N[o]. 045802-91-616; Defendant Heirs of Marcelino Santos represented by Cristino Santos OCT N[o]. P-727; Free Patent N[o]. 045802-91-919; Defendant Aurora N. de Pedro married to Elpidio de Pedro OCT No. P-691; Free Patent No. 045802-91-914; Defendant Wilson Dadia OCT No. P-722; Free Patent No. 045802-91-915; Defendant Prudencio Marana OCT No. P-721; Free Patent N[o]. 045802-91-923. There being clear bad faith on the part of the Private defendants in obtaining said Free Patents and titles in their names covering the portions of the property of the plaintiff, said defendants are each ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amount of P20,000.00 as attorneys fees, P3,000.00 as appearance fee and also P50,000.00 as moral damages with costs against said private defendants. Once the Decision becomes final and in order to give full force and effect to the Decision of the Court nullifying the titles and patents issued to the defendants, the latter are directed to surrender the same within a period of ten (10) days from the finality of said Decision to the Registry of Deeds of Marikina City and failure on the part of the defendants to surrender the owners duplicate of the titles in their possession, defendant Register of Deeds of Marikina City is authorized to cancel the same without the presentation of said owners duplicate of titles in the possession of the defendants. [24] (Emphasis supplied) In so ruling, the Regional Trial Court noted that none of the defendants, including De Pedro, filed an answer to respondents complaints. [25] The Regional Trial Court also noted the committee report admitting CENROs irregularity in the issuance of the free patents to the defendants in the case. [26] The Regional Trial Court also found that the title and free patent issued to De Pedro were void. [27] As early as August 30, 1937, or before the free patents were issued to the defendants in the case, OCT No. 438 was already issued to the propertys original owner. [28] Hence, the property was already segregated from the mass of public domain that can be disposed by the government. [29] On March 30, 2000, De Pedro, through counsel, filed before the Regional Trial Court a motion for new trial, alleging that the counsel received notice of the January 7, 2000 decision on March 16, 2000. [30] De Pedro argued that the Regional Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over her person because of improper and defective service of summons. Citing the officers return dated February 22, 1999, De Pedro pointed out that summons was not personally served upon her for the reason that according to the messenger of Post Office of Pasig their (sic) is no person in the said given address. [31] De Pedro also argued that the case should have been dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia . She al