University of the Philippines College of Law

[CRIM] I-B;
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional
Case Name
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37, CARMELO V. CACHERO, in his capacity as
Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of Manila, and TARCILA LAPERAL MENDOZA,
Respondents.
Topic Execution against the Government; Immunity of the State
Case No. | Date G.R. NO. 161657 | OCT. 4, 2007
Ponente Garcia, J.
 Respondent Mendoza owns a 4,924.60 sq.m. lot situated at No. 1440 Arlegui St., San Miguel,
Manila, near the Malacañang Palace complex (Arlegui Property). Mendoza claimed that the
property was forcibly and illegally taken from her by the PSG of President Marcos. She filed a
case in the RTC Manila against the petitioner Republic for reconveyance and declaration of
nullity of deed of sale, stating that the deed of sale between the Republic and Fidel Vivar was
null and void. In an order, Judge Hidalgo rendered judgment by default in favor of respondent
Case Summary
Mendoza, as Republic did not file the required answer within the period in his motion for
extension. Republic is ordered to pay P143,600,000 and P1,480,627,688.
 Petitioner Republic then filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari, seeking to nullify the decision of
the RTC. Republic gave as justification the fact that the case involves an over Php 2Billion
judgement against the state, allegedly rendered in blatant violation of the Constitution, law,
and jurisprudence.
 Supreme Court agrees with the decision of the RTC in reinstating respondent Mendoza as
Decision
owner of Arlegui property, but with modifications as to payments (see ruling)
Doctrine 

RELEVANT FACTS
 June 1999 – Mendoza filed with RTC of Manila for reconveyance and nullity of deed of sale and title
against the Republic, Register of Deeds of Manila, and Atty. Fidel Vivar. Mendoza alleged she was the
owner of Arlegui property, and that the Republic forcibly dispossessed her of it.
 Republic answered using the State’s immunity from suit.
 May 5 – Mendoza filed Motion for Leave of Court to file a Third Amended Complaint  RTC ordered
Republic to reply within 5 days from May 16, 2003
o Complaint included: declaration of nullity of deed of sale dated July 15, 1975; reinstatement of
TCT (Transfer Cert. of Title) no. 118527
o Alleged: TCT no. 118527 had already been cancelled by virtue of deed of sale in favor of the
Republic; Aforementioned deed of sale was fictitious and that no deed of conveyance was given
by the Mendoza couple, nor did they meet Fidel Vivar.
 July 7, 2003 – resident presented evidence ex parte as Republic did not submit answer even after two
motions for extension (last Aug. 19, 2003)
o Also discovered that Vivar was not a commissioned notary public for the City of Manila
 August 27, 2003 - RTC judged in favor of Mendoza by default judgment and rendered the ff:
o July 15, 1975 deed of sale null and void
o TCT 11891 of Republic null and void
o Reinstate plaintiff’s TCT no. 118527
o Defendant to pay just compensation of P143,600,000.00
o Upon payment, issue a new TCT in favor of the defendant Rpublic
o Defendant to pay plaintiff P1,480,627,688 – representing reasonable rental use.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
[CRIM] I-B;
o Defendant to pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fee – equivalent to 15% amount due to plaintiff.
 Petition for writ of certiorari by petitioner, Republic.
 Petitioner (Republic) sough to nullify RTC’s decision (default, judgment by default). Grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction are the orders issued in the default judgement.
 Deprivation of procedural due process is petitioner’s threshold theme. Certiorari was granted.
 RTC’s default judgment cannot be struck down. Sec 3., Rule 9 of the Rules of Court
 Deprived of hearing does not mean deprivation of due process; There is no grave abuse of discretion

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N RTC Manila No. Grave abuse of discretion connotes capricious, despotic, oppressive or whimsical
committed grave exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Under the premises, the mere
abuse of discretion issuance by the trial court of a judgment by default can easily be sustained as correct and
doubtless within its jurisdiction; within Sec. 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court

Issue
W/N the Arlegui
property was indeed
legally owned by
Mendoza
Ratio
 Evidence presented support the conclusion that the Marcos Administration forcibly
gained possession of the property in question and secure a certificate of title without
letting Mendoza know. The court granted Mendoza’s plea for recovery of the Arlegui
property, it being legally hers all along.

Issue Ratio
W/N the level of  The monetary award was declared erroneous (P500,000/month rental). To the
compensation (for the Supreme Court, P20,000/month for use and occupancy of the Arlegui property
use and occupancy of beginning July 1975 until vacated is found reasonable. The order of the RTC to pay
the Arlegui property) private respondent P1,480,627,688 is nullified.
would be fair to both
the petitioner and
private respondent
and within legal
bounds.

RULING
 The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila as it nullified TCT No. 118911 of petitioner Republic of the
Philippines and ordered the Register of Deeds of Manila to reinstate private respondent Tarcila L. Mendoza’s
TCT No. 118527, or to issue her a new certificate of title is AFFIRMED
 Writ of Certiorari is ISSUED

SEPARATE OPINION/S

NOTES

 Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court prescribes and allows in the event the defending party fails to
seasonably file a responsive pleading. The provision reads:
 University of the Philippines College of Law
[CRIM] I-B;
o SEC. 3. Default; declaration of.- If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed
therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and
proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to
render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence ....