G.R. No. 161657 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HON. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 37, CARMELO V. CACHERO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, AND TARCILA LAPERAL MENDOZA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Co

Ruling

accordingly, asked that it be given a period of thirty (30) days from May 21, 2003 or until June 20, 2003 within which to submit an Answer. [5] June 20, 2003 came and went, but no answer was filed. On July 18, 2003 and again on August 19, 2003 , the OSG moved for a 30-day extension at each instance. The filing of the last two motions for extension proved to be an idle gesture, however, since the trial court had meanwhile issued an order [6] dated July 7, 2003 declaring the petitioner Republic as in default and allowing the private respondent to present her evidence ex-parte . The evidence for the private respondent, as plaintiff a quo , consisted of her testimony denying having executed the alleged deed of sale dated July 15, 1975 which paved the way for the issuance of TCT No. 118911. According to her, said deed is fictitious or inexistent, as evidenced by separate certifications, the first ( Exh. "E"), issued by the Register of Deeds for Manila and the second ( Exh. "F" ), by the Office of Clerk of Court, RTC Manila. Exhibit " E " [7] states that a copy of the supposed conveying deed cannot, despite diligent efforts of records personnel, be located, while Exhibit "F" [8] states that Fidel Vivar was not a commissioned notary public for and in the City of Manila for the year 1975. Three other witnesses [9] testified, albeit their testimonies revolved around the appraisal and rental values of the Arlegui property . Eventually, the trial court rendered a judgment by default [10] for Mendoza and against the Republic. To the trial court, the Republic had veritably confiscated Mendoza's property, and deprived her not only of the use thereof but also denied her of the income she could have had otherwise realized during all the years she was illegally dispossessed of the same. Dated August 27, 2003, the trial court's decision dispositively reads as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: Declaring the deed of sale dated July 15, 1975, annotated at the back of [TCT] No. 118527 as PE:2035/T-118911, as non-existent and/or fictitious, and, therefore, null and void from the beginning; Declaring that [TCT] No. 118911 of the defendant Republic of the Philippines has no basis, thereby making it null and void from the beginning; Ordering the defendant Register of Deeds for the City of Manila to reinstate plaintiff [Mendoza's TCT] No. 118527; Ordering the defendant Republic ... to pay just compensation in the sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY THREE MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND ( P143,600,000.00) PESOS, plus interest at the legal rate, until the whole amount is paid in full for the acquisition of the subject property; Ordering the plaintiff, upon payment of the just compensation for the acquisition of her property, to execute the necessary deed of conveyance in favor of the defendant Republic ...; and, on the other hand, directing the defendant Register of Deeds, upon presentation of the said deed of conveyance, to cancel plaintiff's TCT No. 118527 and to issue, i