Cited Laws
accordingly issued on April 4, 1986 in the name of Felicisima M. Melencio, the owners copy of which was entrusted to complainants. Tecson subsequently filed before the Cabanatuan City Prosecutors Office an Affidavit of Desistance dated September 5, 1986 [7] alleging that his filing of the criminal complaint arose out of mere misunderstanding and difference with herein complainants and their co-respondents and he had no sufficient evidence against them. Some years later or on May 2, 1990, respondent approached complainants and told them that he would borrow the owners copy of Mrs. Mesinas title with the undertaking that he would, in four months, let Mrs. Mesina execute a deed of sale over the Melencio property in complainants favor. In fact, respondent gave complainants a written undertaking [8] dated May 2, 1990 reading: Received the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 4383 issued by the Register of Deeds, Cabanatuan City registered in the name of Felicisima Mesina, widow, consisting of about 854 square meters more or less located at calle Melencio, Cabanatuan City from Mrs. Ana Chua and Marcelina Hsia. I promise to and undertake to have the Deed of Sale of the above-mentioned property in favor of Ana Chua and Marcelina Hsia to be signed by Mrs. Felicisima Mesina, within four (4) months from date hereof so that the above-mentioned property and title maybe transferred in the name of Ana Chua and Macelina Hsia. (Underscoring supplied) In the meantime, Mrs. Mesina died in the early part of 1991. Despite respondents repeated promises to effect the transfer of title in complainants name, he failed to do so. Complainants were later informed that the Melencio property was being offered for sale to the public. The spouses Chua and complainant Marcelina Hsia thus filed on August 24, 1992 a Complaint [9] against respondent and his two siblings before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nueva Ecija in Cabanatuan City, for Declaration of Nullity of Sale and Reconveyance of Real Property. As of the time of the filing of the present administrative complaint in 1998, the civil case against the Mesina siblings was still pending. This Court, by Resolution of July 13, 1998, [10] directed respondent to file Comment on the complaint within ten days. By Resolution of December 2, 1998, [11] this Court, noting that the copy of the Resolution of July 13, 1998 requiring respondent to comment on the complaint sent to him at his office address at S. M. Mesina Law Office, 30 Jupiter St., Paseo de Roxas, Bel-Air Subd., Makati City was returned unserved with the notation Moved, considered the Resolution of July 13, 1998 served on respondent by substituted service pursuant to Rule 13, Section 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent was accordingly deemed to have waived the filing of the required comment. By the same Resolution of December 2, 1998, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recomm
A.C. No. 7749 - JOSEFINA CARANZA VDA. DE SALDIVAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RAMON SG CABANES, JR..R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.C. No. 7749
CaseG.R. No. 125375 - SPOUSES ELPIDIO APOSTOL AND AMELIA APOSTOL, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES EMMANUEL CHUA AND EDNA L. CHUA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 125375 -
CaseDemetrio Alcantara v. Republic of the Philippines, et al.
G.R. No. 192536 -