G.R. No. 155206 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, VS. EDUARDO M. SANTIAGO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIDOW ROSARIO ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE SANTIAGO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant: Ordering defendant to reconvey to plaintiff the seventy-eight (78) lots released and excluded from the foreclosure sale including the additional exclusion from the public sale, namely: Lot Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 0, 10, 13, Block I (Old Plan). Lot Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10, Block II (Old Plan). Lot Nos. 3, 10, 12, and 13, Block I (New Plan), Block III (Old Plan), Lot Nos. 7, 14 and 20, Block III (New Plan), Block V (Old Plan). Lot Nos. 13 and 20, Block IV (New Plan), Block VI (Old Plan). Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 10, Block V (New Plan), Block VII (Old Plan). g. Lot Nos. 1, 5, 8, 15, 26 and 27, Block VI (New Plan), Block VIII (Old Plan). Lot Nos. 7 and 12, Block VII (New Plan), Block II (Old Plan). Lot Nos. 1, 4 and 6, Block VIII (New Plan), Block X (Old Plan). Lot 5, Block X (New Plan), Block XII (Old Plan). Lot 6, Block XI (New Plan), Block XII (Old Plan). Lots 2, 5, 12 and 15, Block I. Lots 6, 9 and 11, Block 2. Lots 1, 5, 6, 7, 16 and 23, Block 3. Lot 6, Block 4. Lots 5, 12, 13 and 24, Block 5. Lots 10 and 16, Block 6. Lots 6 and 15, Block 7. Lots 13, 24, 28 and 29, Block 8. Lots 1, 11, 17 and 22, Block 9. Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 10. Lots 1, 2, 3 and 5 (New), Block 11. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff, if the seventy-eight (78) excluded lots could not be reconveyed, the fair market value of each of said lots. Ordering the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City to cancel the land titles covering the excluded lots in the name of defendant or any of its successors-in-interest including all derivative titles therefrom and to issue new land titles in plaintiff's name. Ordering the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City to cancel the Notices of Lis Pendens inscribed in TCT No. PT-80342 under Entry No. PT-12267/T-23554; TCT No. 81812 under Entry No. PT-12267/T-23554; and TCT No. PT-84913 under Entry No. PT-12267/T-23554. Costs of suit. [3] The petitioner elevated the case to the CA which rendered the assailed decision affirming that of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the herein appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision of December 17, 1997 of Branch 71 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City is hereby AFFIRMED. [4] The petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the aforesaid decision but the same was denied in the assailed CA Resolution of September 5, 2002. The petitioner now comes to this Court alleging that: THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT A) PETITIONER WAS GUILTY OF BAD FAITH WHEN IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT GROUND TO SUPPORT SUCH CONCLUSION; AND B) THERE WAS NO PRESCRIPTION IN THIS CASE. [5] In its petition, the petitioner maintains that it did not act in bad faith when it erroneously included in its certificate of sale, and subsequently consolidated the titles in its name over the seventy-eight lots ("subject lots") that were excluded from the foreclo