G.R. No. 139008 - ROBERT DEL MAR, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND NORMA EBERSOLE DEL MAR.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered against [petitioner] and in favor of [private respondent], as follows: Ordering the Register of Deeds of Ilagan, Isabela to cancel Titles Nos. T-82257; T-82261, T-82260, T-82263, T-82264, T-234664, T-116117 and T-822659; Ordering Robert E. del Mar to reconvey the ownership of properties to [private respondent] and in case of failure on the part of [petitioner], the Register of Deeds is directed to execute the necessary deed of reconveyance in favor of [private respondent]; Enjoining permanently [petitioner] or any person acting for and in [his] behalf from committing or doing any act of disposition or alienation of the properties; Ordering [petitioner] to pay the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) as moral damages to [private respondent]; Ordering [petitioner] to pay the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS ([P]250,000.00) as attorneys fees. Cost of the suit. [5] On the other hand, private respondent counters with the following allegations in her Memorandum: The parcels of land covered by the land titles that are sought to be nullified x x x are all owned by [private] respondent NORMA EBERSOLE DEL MAR by way of inheritance from her lawful [ascendants]. The original titles were all issued in her name and favor. In the early 1970s [private] respondent x x x together with her two children, GERALD and FLORENCE went to the United States with the intent of obtaining domicile there[i]n and leaving behind the other son x x x petitioner x x x, and entrusting [to] his [administration] x x x their properties. In 1974, [private respondent] came back to the Philippines and stayed up until 1978 and thereafter went back to the US. During her stay, the properties were intact. Sometime in 1996, [private respondent] discovered that the properties were already in the name of [petitioner]. [Private respondent] protested because she never had done any act of transfer of the properties in favor of [petitioner], because her intent was to have these properties to be eventually x x x divided into THREE (3) equal parts for her THREE (3) children x x x. The transfer was [without] the knowledge of [private respondent]. It was fraudulent and unlawful x x x. Private respondent also claims that petitioner had been duly served summons, but neither he nor his counsel appeared for pretrial. Hence, petitioner was declared in default. While he did receive the Order of Default, he never bothered to have it lifted. So, trial proceeded and evidence ex parte for private respondent was received by the trial court. [6] Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. On January 7, 1998, Noel T. Tomas, legal researcher and officer in charge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City (Branch 35), forwarded to the CA the records of Civil Case No. 35-2373. [7] Buenaventura B. Miguel, chief of the Judicial Records Division of the appellate court, thereafter wrote a letter [8] dated August 13, 1998, addressed to Atty. Federico Abuan Jr., cou