"Susan D. Degollacion v. Register of Deeds of Cavite (Trece Martires City) and Pilar Development Corporation, Incorporated."

Ruling

accordingly cancelled and TCT No. T-96011 [3] for Lot No. 5766-A and TCT No. T-96019 [4] for Lot No. 5766-B were issued in the name of Susan. Susan was allegedly later to learn that a portion (162,945 square meters) of her "property," apparently referring to Lot 5766-B, was covered by TCT T-26877 in the name of respondent Pilar Development Corporation (the corporation), hence, she instituted a Complaint for Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title with Damages and Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction [5] against the Register of Deeds of Cavite and the corporation before the Cavite Regional Trial Court at Trece Martires where it was docketed as Civil Case No. TM-580. Susan claimed that the title of the corporation, which was issued on November 8, 1967, was derived from spurious sources. To the complaint the corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that it was not verified; it bore no certification on non-forum shopping; and except for Annexes "A" and "B" (copies of Susan's titles), Annexes "C" to "H" inclusive were not attached to the complaint which was served along with the summons. In her Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Susan disclaimed that her complaint was not verified and that it violated the non-forum shopping certification requirement. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. [6] On the non-attachment of the annexes to the complaint which was served, together with the summons, the trial court observed that Susan's opposition to the motion to dismiss was silent. The trial court went on to state, however: x x x But even assuming ex gratia argumenti that said annexes were not attached to the complaint when summons was served, the same is not a fatal defect which will warrant the dismissal of the complaint. However, counsel for plaintiff should furnish said defendant with a copy of said annexes for the sake of fair play which should be done within five (5) days from notice and in order to obviate any further discussion as to whether or not it is meritorious. [7] (Underscoring in the original; emphasis supplied) It appears that Susan failed to comply with the directive of the trial court to furnish the corporation those annexes. On a technicality, the trial court eventually declared the corporation in default. The corporation's Motion for Reconsideration was denied, hence, Susan was allowed to present her evidence ex parte. [8] By Decision of July 7, 1997, [9] the trial court held that Susan failed to adequately show that the corporation's title was derived from spurious sources, [10] the photocopy of said title (Exh. "D") which Susan presented, assuming that it is admissible in evidence, not having served the purpose. And the trial court entertained doubts on the alleged loss [11] of the Deed of Sale covering Susan's lot in question, pondering on "whether it is not possible that [her] TCT Nos. 20726 and TCT 26796 . . . were the ones derived from spurious sources." [12] The trial