DONGLAS, AND AMPILOQUIO FABELA, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered in favor of the heirs of the late Anastacio Fabela including those named in the Complaint as plaintiffs, as co-owners of lot 868, Pls-293 subject of the complaint and as indicated in the plan (Exhibit D), as such entitled to the full enjoyment and possession thereof. All other prayers or claims in the complaint are denied for lack of merit. In finding that the property belonged to the heirs of Anastacio Fabela, the trial court concluded that in the Escritura de Transaccion, Carmelino Neri was obliged to restore the subject property in or about 1938 to the heirs of Anastacio Fabela; thus the fulfillment of that prestation of Carmelino Neri was presumed under Section 5, par (ii), Rule 131, Rules of Court which enumerates among the disputable presumptions that a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor-in interest. It thus found that the Fabela heirs have been in possession of lot 868 since 1938 up to the present and as such were entitled to the full enjoyment and possession as owners thereof. On July 24, 1989, defendants heirs of Roque Neri Sr. filed a motion to set aside orders of default and judgment which the trial court denied in an Order dated August 22, 1989, on the grounds that the motion had been filed out of time (after judgment) and that even if such motion would be treated as a motion to set aside judgment/new trial under Section 1, Rule 37, Rules of Court , defendants negligence was not excusable, much less a mistake. [5] Heirs of Roque Neri Sr. appealed to the respondent Court of Appeals. Considering, however, that the original records of the case from the trial court had been lost or misplaced, the respondent court, pursuant to Rule 7 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA), set the case for preliminary conference on December 17, 1998, which was reset to January 26, 1999, and the parties were informed of the loss of the original records of the case. Counsel for defendants-appellants heirs of Roque Neri Sr. manifested her clients willingness to submit the case for decision, even without the original records and asked for thirty days to file memorandum, to which manifestation counsel for plaintiffs-appellees heirs of Fabela interposed no objection. The respondent court granted appellants prayer and gave plaintiffs-appellees twenty days to file their counter memorandum and appellants ten (10) days to file reply memorandum, after which the case was submitted for decision. [6] On June 17, 1999, the respondent Court of Appeals rendered its assailed decision reversing the trial courts judgment by default and dismissed the complaint. It sustained the trial courts declaration of default against appellants heirs of Roque Neri, Sr. but found that the judgment of default was contrary to the ev