G.R. No. 204594 - SINDOPHIL, INC., VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly be cancelled. [16] In their Answer, [17] Teodoro, Puma, Ty, and Sindophil countered that the Republic was estopped from questioning the transfers considering that it had allowed the series of transfers and even accepted the "tremendous amount[s] paid" [18] as capital gains tax. They added that the Complaint was filed because of the Register of Deeds' "personal grudge" [19] against them because they had questioned a consulta issued by the Register of Deeds before the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority. [20] Finally, they contended that they were innocent purchasers for value and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, reconveyance should not lie. [21] Arguing that the Republic had no cause of action against them, they prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint. [22] During trial, only the Republic was able to present its evidence. Defendants Teodoro, Puma, Ty, and Sindophil were all deemed to have waived their right to present evidence when they failed to present any evidence or witness despite several settings. The parties were then ordered to file their respective memoranda; but instead of filing a memorandum, Sindophil filed a Motion to Re-Open Case, [23] praying that it be allowed to present evidence that it was a buyer in good faith. As to why it failed to present evidence during trial, Sindophil explained that its witness, Sindophil President Victoria Y. Chalid (Chalid), suffered a stroke which prevented her from testifying during trial. [24] Lastly, it pointed out that the Regional Trial Court granted the Republic a total of 110 days to file a formal offer of evidence. Thus, Sindophil prayed that it be "given equal opportunity to present [its] defense since the [Regional Trial Court] had been very lenient to [the Republic's counsel,] the Office of the Solicitor General[.]" [25] The Regional Trial Court, however, went on to decide the case without acting on Sindophil's Motion to Re-Open Case. In its November 13, 2009 Decision, [26] it ruled in favor of the Republic and voided the certificates of title issued to defendants Teodoro, Puma, Ty, and Sindophil. It found that the Tramo property claimed by Teodoro under TCT No. 10354 was derived from TCT No. 6735 registered in the name of the Republic. [27] However, no annotation of the supposed transfer to Teodoro was annotated on TCT No. 6735. [28] On the claim of defendants that they were innocent purchasers for value, the Regional Trial Court said that this defense was "just a mere [assertion] and was never supported by any documents." [29] It stated that defendants failed to discharge the burden of proving that they were purchasers in good faith and for value, thus, rejecting their argument. [30] The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court November 13, 2009 Decision read: WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, TCT No. 10354 in the name of Marcelo R. Teodoro and all subsequent titles derived therein, TCT Nos. 128358, 129957 and 132440, in the names of Reynald