ltd cases hw3
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
1/67
1 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
01 Director of Lands vs CA & Abistado 2
02 Roxas vs CA 7
03 Republic vs Marasigan 13
04 Roxas vs Enriquez 18
05 Reoublic vs CA & Ribaya 33
06 Republic vs Register of Deeds of Quezon 40
07 Director of Lands vs Medina 45
08 Esconde vs Barlongay 50
09 Director of Lands vs Agustin 55
10 Director of Lands LMB vs CA 56
11 Valisno vs Plan 62
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
2/67
2 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997.*
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS andTEODORO ABISTADO, substituted by MARGARITA, MARISSA,
MARIBEL, ARNOLD and MARY ANN, all surnamed ABISTADO,
respondents.
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Certiorari; Appeals; Petition for Review; Where a party
appeals a final disposition of the Court of Appeals, his remedy is a petition based on Rule 45,
not Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.The Director of Lands represented by the Solicitor General
thus elevated this recourse to us. This Court notes that the petitioners counsel anchored his
petition on Rule 65. This is an error. His remedy should be based on Rule 45 because he is
appealing a final disposition of the Court of Appeals. Hence, we shall treat his petition as one
for review under Rule 45, and not for certiorari under Rule 65.
Same; Same; Land Registration; Publications; Absent any publication in a newspaper of
general circulation, the land registration court cannot validly confirm and register the title of
the applicant.Admittedly, the above provision provides in clear and categorical t erms that
publication in the Official Gazette suffices to confer jurisdiction upon the land registration
court. However, the question boils down to whether, absent any publication in a newspaper of
general circulation, the land registration court can validly confirm and register the title of
private respondents. We answer this query in the negative. This answer is impelled by the
demands of statutory construction and the due process rationale behind the publication
requirement.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutory Construction; The word shall denote s an imperative
and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute; If mailing of notices is essential, then
by parity of reasoning, publication in a newspaper of general circulation is likewise imperative
where the law includes such requirement in its detailed provision.The law used the term
shall in prescribing the work to be done by the Commissioner of Land Registration upon the
latters receipt of the court order setting the time for initial hearing. The said word denotes an
imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute. While concededly such
literal mandate is not an absolute rule in statutory construction, as its import ultimately
depends upon its context in the entire provision, we hold that in the present case the term must
be understood in its normal mandatory meaning. In Republic vs. Marasigan, the Court through
Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. held that Section 23 of PD No. 1529 requires notice of the
initial hearing by means of (1) publication, (2) mailing and (3) posting, all of which must be
complied with. If the intention of the law were otherwise, said section would not have stressed
in detail the requirements of mailing of notices to all persons named in the petition who, per
Section 15 of the Decree, include owners of adjoining properties, and occupants of the land.
Indeed, if mailing of notices is essential, then by parity of reasoning, publication in a
newspaper of general circulation is likewise imperative since the law included such
requirement in its detailed provision.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Due Process; Actions in Rem; An in rem proceeding is
validated essentially through publication; The elementary norms of due process require that
before the claimed property is taken from concerned parties and registered in the name of the
applicant, said parties must be given notice and opportunity to oppose.It should be notedfurther that land registration is a proceeding in rem. Being in rem, such proceeding requires
constructive seizure of the land as against all persons, including the state, who have rights to or
interests in the property. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication.
This being so, the process must strictly be complied with. Otherwise, persons who may be
interested or whose rights may be adversely affected would be barred from contesting an
application which they had no knowledge of. As has been ruled, a party as an owner seeking
the inscription of realty in the land registration court must prove by satisfactory and conclusive
evidence not only his ownership thereof but the identity of the same, for he is in the same
situation as one who institutes an action for recovery of realty. He must prove his title against
the whole world. This task, which rests upon the applicant, can best be achieved when all
persons concernednay, the whole worldwho have rights to or interests in the subject
property are notified and effectively invited to come to court and show cause why theapplication should not be granted. The elementary norms of due process require that before the
claimed property is taken from concerned parties and registered in the name of the applicant,
said parties must be given notice and opportunity to oppose.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Official Gazette; The Official Gazette is not as
widely read and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation, such that
the notices published therein may not reach the interested parties on time, if at all; The all-
encompassing in rem nature of land registration cases, the consequences of default orders
issued against the whole world and the objective of disseminating the notice in as wide a
manner as possible demand a mandatory construction of the requirements for publication,
mailing and posting.It may be asked why publication in a newspaper of general circulation
should be deemed mandatory when the law already requires notice by publication in theOfficial Gazette as well as by mailing and posting, all of which have already been complied
with in the case at hand. The reason is due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is
not as widely read and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation,
such that the notices published therein may not reach the interested parties on time, if at all.
Additionally, such parties may not be owners of neighboring properties, and may in fact not
own any other real estate. In sum, the all-encompassing in rem nature of land registration
cases, the consequences of default orders issued against the whole world and the objective of
disseminating the notice in as wide a manner as possible demand a mandatory construction of
the requirements for publication, mailing and posting.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Time and again, the Supreme Court has declared that where
the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation,
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
3/67
3 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
vacillation or equivocationthere is room only for application.Admittedly, there was failure
to comply with the explicit publication requirement of the law. Private respondents did not
proffer any excuse; even if they had, it would not have mattered because the statute itself allows
no excuses. Ineludibly, this Court has no authority to dispense with such mandatory
requirement. The law is unambiguous and its rationale clear. Time and again, this Court has
declared that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for
interpretation, vacillation or equivocation; there is room only for application. There is no
alternative. Thus, the application for land registration filed by private respondents must be
dismissed without prejudice to reapplication in the future, after all the legal requisites shallhave been duly complied with.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Apollo T. Tria for private respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Is newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land
registration case mandatory or directory?
Statement of the Case
The Court of Appeals ruled that it was merely procedural and that the failure
to cause such publication did not deprive the trial court of its authority to grant
the application. But the Solicitor General disagreed and thus filed this petitionto set aside the Decision1 promulgated on July 3, 1991 and the subsequent
Resolution2 promulgated on November 19, 1991 by Respondent Court of
Appeals3 in CA-G.R. CV No. 23719. The dispositive portion of the challenged
Decision reads:4
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of dismissal appealed
from is hereby set aside, and a new one entered confirming the registration
and title of applicant, Teodoro Abistado, Filipino, a resident of Barangay 7,
Poblacion Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, now deceased and substituted by
Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold and Mary Ann, all surnamed Abistado,
represented by their aunt, Miss Josefa Abistado, Filipinos, residents of
Poblacion Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, to the parcel of land covered under
MSI (IV-A-8) 315-D located in Poblacion Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro.
The oppositions filed by the Republic of the Philippines and private oppositor
are hereby dismissed for want of evidence.
Upon the finality of this decision and payment of the corresponding taxes due
on this land, let an order for the issuance of a decree be issued.
The Facts
On December 8, 1986, Private Respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition
for original registration of his title over 648 square meters of land under
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529.5 The application was docketed as Land
Registration Case (LRC) No. 86 and assigned to Branch 44 of the Regional
Trial Court of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro.6 However, during the
pendency of his petition, applicant died. Hence, his heirsMargarita, Marissa,
Maribel, Arnold and Mary Ann, all surnamed Abistadorepresented by their
aunt Josefa Abistado, who was appointed their guardian ad litem, were
substituted as applicants.
The land registration court in its decision dated June 13, 1989 dismissed the
petition for want of jurisdiction. However, it found that the applicants through
their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and
peaceful possession of the subject land since 1938.
In dismissing the petition, the trial court reasoned:7
x x x. However, the Court noted that applicants failed to comply with the
provisions of Section 23 (1) of PD 1529, requiring the Applicants to publish the
notice of Initial Hearing (Exh. E) in a newspaper of general circulation in thePhilippines. Exhibit E was only published in the Official Gazette (Exhibits F
and G). Consequently, the Court is of the well considered view that it has not
legally acquired jurisdiction over the instant application for want of compliance
with the mandatory provision requiring publication of the notice of initial
hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.
The trial court also cited Ministry of Justice Opinion No. 48, Series of 1982,
which in its pertinent portion provides:8
It bears emphasis that the publication requirement under Section 23 [of PD
1529] has a two-fold purpose; the first, which is mentioned in the provision ofthe aforequoted provision refers to publication in the Official Gazette, and is
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
4/67
4 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
jurisdictional; while the second, which is mentioned in the opening clause of
the same paragraph, refers to publication not only in the Official Gazette but
also in a newspaper of general circulation, and is procedural. Neither one nor
the other is dispensable. As to the first, publication in the Official Gazette is
indispensably necessary because without it, the court would be powerless to
assume jurisdiction over a particular land registration case. As to the second,
publication of the notice of initial hearing also in a newspaper of general
circulation is indispensably necessary as a requirement of procedural dueprocess; otherwise, any decision that the court may promulgate in the case
would be legally infirm.
Unsatisfied, private respondents appealed to Respondent Court of Appeals
which, as earlier explained, set aside the decision of the trial court and
ordered the registration of the title in the name of Teodoro Abistado.
The subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in the challenged CA
Resolution dated November 19, 1991.
The Director of Lands represented by the Solicitor General thus elevated this
recourse to us. This Court notes that the petitioners counsel anchored his
petition on Rule 65. This is an error. His remedy should be based on Rule 45
because he is appealing a final disposition of the Court of Appeals. Hence, we
shall treat his petition as one for review under Rule 45, and not for certiorari
under Rule 65.9
The Issue
Petitioner alleges that Respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse
of discretion10 in holding
x x x that publication of the petition for registration of title in LRC Case No. 86need not be published in a newspaper of general circulation, and in not
dismissing LRC Case No. 86 for want of such publication.
Petitioner points out that under Section 23 of PD 1529, the notice of initial
hearing shall be published both in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of
general circulation. According to petitioner, publication in the Official Gazette
is necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court, and x x x in x x x a
newspaper of general circulation to comply with the notice requirement of due
process.11
Private respondents, on the other hand, contend that failure to comply with the
requirement of publication in a newspaper of general circulation is a mere
procedural defect. They add that publication in the Official Gazette is
sufficient to confer jurisdiction.12
In reversing the decision of the trial court, Respondent Court of Appeals
ruled:13
x x x although the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette and in anewspaper of general circulation is couched in mandatory terms, it cannot be
gainsaid that the law also mandates with equal force that publication in the
Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court.
Further, Respondent Court found that the oppositors were afforded the
opportunity to explain matters fully and present their side. Thus, it justified its
disposition in this wise:14
x x x We do not see how t he lack of compliance with the required procedure
prejudiced them in any way. Moreover, the other requirements of: publication
in the Official Gazette, personal notice by mailing, and posting at the site andother conspicuous places, were complied with and these are sufficient to
notify any party who is minded to make any objection of the application for
registration.
The Courts Ruling
We find for petitioner.
Newspaper Publication Mandatory
The pertinent part of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 requiringpublication of the notice of initial hearing reads as follows:
Sec. 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc.The court shall, within five
days from filing of the application, issue an order setting the date and hour of
the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor later than
ninety days from the date of the order.
The public shall be given notice of initial hearing of the application for land
registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.
1. By publication.
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
5/67
5 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the
Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a notice of initial hearing to be
published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, that the publication in the
Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said
notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the
land involved including the adjoining owners so far as known, and to all whom
it may concern. Said notice shall also require all persons concerned to appearin court at a certain date and time to show cause why the prayer of said
application shall not be granted.
x x x x x x x x x
Admittedly, the above provision provides in clear and categorical terms that
publication in the Official Gazette suffices to confer jurisdiction upon the land
registration court. However, the question boils down to whether, absent any
publication in a newspaper of general circulation, the land registration court
can validly confirm and register the title of private respondents.
We answer this query in the negative. This answer is impelled by the
demands of statutory construction and the due process rationale behind the
publication requirement.
The law used the term shall in prescribing the work to be done by the
Commissioner of Land Registration upon the latters receipt of the court order
setting the time for initial hearing. The said word denotes an imperative and
thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute.15 While concededly such
literal mandate is not an absolute rule in statutory construction, as its import
ultimately depends upon its context in the entire provision, we hold that in the
present case the term must be understood in its normal mandatory meaning.In Republic vs. Marasigan,16 the Court through Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide,
Jr. held that Section 23 of PD 1529 requires notice of the initial hearing by
means of (1) publication, (2) mailing and (3) posting, all of which must be
complied with. If the intention of the law were otherwise, said section would
not have stressed in detail the requirements of mailing of notices to all
persons named in the petition who, per Section 15 of the Decree, include
owners of adjoining properties, and occupants of the land. Indeed, if mailing
of notices is essential, then by parity of reasoning, publication in a newspaper
of general circulation is likewise imperative since the law included such
requirement in its detailed provision.
It should be noted further that land registration is a proceeding in rem.17
Being in rem, such proceeding requires constructive seizure of the land as
against all persons, including the state, who have rights to or interests in the
property. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication.
This being so, the process must strictly be complied with. Otherwise, persons
who may be interested or whose rights may be adversely affected would be
barred from contesting an application which they had no knowledge of. As has
been ruled, a party as an owner seeking the inscription of realty in the landregistration court must prove by satisfactory and conclusive evidence not only
his ownership thereof but the identity of the same, for he is in the same
situation as one who institutes an action for recovery of realty.18 He must
prove his title against the whole world. This task, which rests upon the
applicant, can best be achieved when all persons concernednay, the whole
worldwho have rights to or interests in the subject property are notified and
effectively invited to come to court and show cause why the application should
not be granted. The elementary norms of due process require that before the
claimed property is taken from concerned parties and registered in the name
of the applicant, said parties must be given notice and opportunity to oppose.
It may be asked why publication in a newspaper of general circulation should
be deemed mandatory when the law already requires notice by publication in
the Official Gazette as well as by mailing and posting, all of which have
already been complied with in the case at hand. The reason is due process
and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as widely read and circulated as
newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation, such that the notices
published therein may not reach the interested parties on time, if at all.
Additionally, such parties may not be owners of neighboring properties, and
may in fact not own any other real estate. In sum, the all-encompassing in rem
nature of land registration cases, the consequences of default orders issued
against the whole world and the objective of disseminating the notice in as
wide a manner as possible demand a mandatory construction of the
requirements for publication, mailing and posting.
Admittedly, there was failure to comply with the explicit publication
requirement of the law. Private respondents did not proffer any excuse; even if
they had, it would not have mattered because the statute itself allows no
excuses. Ineludibly, this Court has no authority to dispense with such
mandatory requirement. The law is unambiguous and its rationale clear. Time
and again, this Court has declared that where the law speaks in clear and
categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, vacillation orequivocation; there is room only for application.19 There is no alternative.
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
6/67
6 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
Thus, the application for land registration filed by private respondents must be
dismissed without prejudice to reapplication in the future, after all the legal
requisites shall have been duly complied with.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and
Resolution are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The application of private
respondent for land registration is DISMISSED without prejudice. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.
Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), On leave.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside. Application
for land registration dismissed without prejudice.
Notes.Publication should precede the date of initial hearing, and where the
issue of the Official Gazette where the notice was published was released
only after the initial hearing, the court did not properly acquire jurisdiction overthe case. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 442 [1994]) The
Supreme Court has consistently accepted the probative value of certifications
of the Director of the National Printing Office in reconstitution casesand
there is no reason for it to deviate from its earlier rulings and to require now
the submission of Official Gazette issues to satisfy the jurisdictional
requirement. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 551 [1995])
o0o
Copyright 2012 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved. [Director of
Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 276(1997)]
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
7/67
7 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
G.R. No. 118436. March 21, 1997.*
HEIRS OF MANUEL A. ROXAS and TRINIDAD DE LEON VDA. DE ROXAS
(in substitution of original petitioner), petitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS and MAGUESUN MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, respondents.
Actions; Courts; Land Registration; Fraud; The right of a person deprived of land or of any
estate or interest therein by adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud isrecognized by law [Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529] as valid and legal basis for
reopening and revising a decree of registration.Registra-tion of untitled land under the
Torrens System is done pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Property Registration
Decree which amended and codified laws relative to registration of property. Adjudication of
land in a registration (or cadastral) case does not become final and incontrovertible until the
expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree. Before such time, the decision remains
under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering the decree, which court after
hearing, may set aside the decision or decree and adjudicate the land to another party.
Absence, minority or other disability of any person affected, or any proceeding in court for
reversing judgments, are not considered grounds to reopen or revise said decree. However, the
right of a person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by adjudication or
confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud is recognized by law (Section 32 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529) as a valid and legal basis for reopening and revising a decree of registration.
It is further required that a petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration be
filed within one year from the date of entry of said decree, that the petitioner has a real and
dominical right and the property has not yet been transferred to an innocent purchaser.
Words and Phrases; Actual Fraud; Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional
deception practiced by means of misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.
Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because of its detrimental effect upon public
interests and public or private confidence, even though the act is not done or committed with an
actual design to commit positive fraud or injury upon other persons.Fraud is of two kinds:
actual or constructive. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception
practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. Constructive
fraud is construed as a fraud because of its detrimental effect upon public interests and public
or private confidence, even though the act is not done or committed with an actual design to
commit positive fraud or injury upon other persons.
Same; Same.Fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Fraud is regarded as intrinsic
where the fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or where the acts
constituting the fraud were or could have been litigated therein, and is regarded as extrinsic
where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or
where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which
it is procured, so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy. Extrinsic fraud is also
actual fraud, but collateral to the transaction sued upon.
Land Registration; Fraud; The distinctions are significant because only actual fraud or
extrinsic fraud has been accepted as grounds for judgment to be annulled or, as in this case, a
decree of registration reopened and reviewed.The distinctions are significant because only
actual fraud or extrinsic fraud has been accepted as grounds for a judgment to be annulled or,
as in this case, a decree of registration reopened and reviewed. In the oft-cited Macabingkil v.
Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation case, the Court drew from American
jurisprudence stating that relief has been granted on the ground that, by some fraud practiced
directly upon the party seeking relief against the judgment or decree, (and) that party has been
prevented from presenting all of his case to the court. The fraud contemplated by the law inthis case (Section 32, P.D. No. 1529) is actual and extrinsic, which includes an intentional
omission of fact required by law. For fraud to justify a review of a decree, it must be extrinsic
or collateral, and the facts upon which it is based have not been controverted or resolved in the
case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. Persons who were fraudulently
deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the original registration case are entitled to a
review of a decree of registration.
Same; Same; Failure and intentional omission of the applicants to disclose the fact of actual
physical possession by another person constitutes an allegation of actual fraud. Likewise, it is
fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact, upon which benefit is obtained to the prejudice of a
third person.In Ramirez v. CA, this Court adopted the Court of Appeals ruling that the
suppression of the fact that the applicant spouses possessed the subject ricefield merely asantichretic creditors and the fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation in the application
that no other persons had any claim or interest in the said land, constitute specific allegations
of extrinsic fraud supported by competent proof. Failure and intentional omission of the
applicants to disclose the fact of actual physical possession by another person constitutes an
allegation of actual fraud. Likewise, it is fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact, upon which
benefit is obtained to the prejudice of a third person.
PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
8/67
8 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for petitioners.
Briccio P. Contreras for private respondent.
ROMERO, J.:
Trinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas, substituted by her heirs,1 instituted thispetition for review of the Court of Appeals decision dated December 8, 1994 in
Trinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Maguesun Management and
Development Corporation, (CA G.R. CV No. 38328), alleging reversible error
committed by respondent appellate court when it affirmed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Cavite. The issue presented before us is whether or
not private respondent Maguesun Corporation committed actual fraud in
obtaining a decree of registration over two unregistered parcels of land in
Tagaytay City, actual fraud being the only ground to reopen or review a
decree of registration.
The facts of the case are narrated below:
On July 2, 1990, herein private respondent Maguesun Management and
Development Corporation (Maguesun Corporation) filed an Application for
Registration of two parcels of unregistered land located in Barangay Sungay,
Tagaytay City (Lot Nos. 7231 and 7239, Cad-355, Tagaytay Cadastre) with an
area of 3,641 and 10,674 square meters respectively. The original registration
case was docketed as Case No. TG-373 before the Regional Trial Court of
Cavite, Branch 18, presided over by Judge Julieto Tabiolo. In support of its
application for registration, Maguesun Corporation presented a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated June 10, 1990, executed by Zenaida Melliza as vendor
and indicating the purchase price to be P170,000.00. Zenaida Melliza in turn,bought the property from the original petitioner herein, Trinidad de Leon vda.
de Roxas for P200,000.00 two and a half months earlier, as evidenced by a
Deed of Sale dated March 26, 1990 and an Affidavit of Self -Adjudication dated
March 24, 1990.
Notices of the initial hearing were sent by the Land Registration Authority (the
National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Authority or NALTDRA) to Hilario
Luna, Jose Gil and Leon Luna on the basis of Maguesun Corporations
application for registration. Since Trinidad de Leon vda. de Roxas was not
named as an adjoining owner, occupant or adverse claimant, she was not
sent a notice of the proceedings. Publication was made in the Official Gazette
and the Record Newsweekly.2 After an Order of general default was issued,
the trial court proceeded to hear the land registration case. On October 4,
1990, the Land Registration Authority reported, among other things, that the
subject parcels of land had previously been applied for registration in Land
Registration Case No. 500, GLRO Record No. 55072 at the Court of First
Instance of Cavite by Manuel A. Roxas and Trinidad de Leon but no decision
has been rendered thereon.3 Eventually, on February 13, 1991 the Regional
Trial Court granted Maguesun Corporations application for registration (Land
Registration Case No. TG-373) in a three-page decision with the following
dispositive portion:4
WHEREFORE, this Court gives imprimatur to the application for registration
of said lands described in plan As-04-000108, Lot Nos. 7231 and 7239, one
with an area of 3,641 and the other with an area of 10,674 square meters, as
supported and shown by the corresponding technical descriptions now
forming part of the records, in the name of Maguesun Management and
Development Corporation, with office address at 521 Edsa, Quezon City, free
from all liens and encumbrances and from any other adverse claims of any
kind and nature.
Upon finality of this Decision, the same ipso facto becomes executory, upon
which eventuality the corresponding decree of registration may thus be
issued.
SO ORDERED.
Consequently, the Regional Trial Court issued the Order for Issuance of the
Decree on March 14, 1991, after the aforementioned Decision in LRC No. TG-
373 became final5 but not before it ordered, on February 14, 1991, Land
Registration Case No. 500 (GLRO Record No. 55072) applied for by Manuel
A. Roxas and Trinidad de Leon, dismissed.
It was only when the caretaker of the property was being asked to vacate the
land that petitioner Trinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas learned of its sale and the
registration of the lots in Maguesun Corporations name.
Hence, on April 21, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for review before the
Regional Trial Court, docketed as Civil Case No. TG-1183 to set aside the
decree of registration on the ground that Maguesun Corporation committed
actual fraud. She alleged that the lots were among the properties she
inherited from her husband, former President Manuel A. Roxas, who died on
April 15, 1946 and that her family had been in open, continuous, adverse and
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
9/67
9 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
uninterrupted possession of the subject property in the concept of owner for
more than thirty years before they applied for its registration under the Torrens
System of land titling. Petitioner further denied that she sold the lots to
Zenaida Melliza whom she had never met before and that her signature was
forged in both the Deed of Sale and the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication. In
support of her claims, she also listed a number of irregularities in the
documents to prove actual fraud. In addition, and perhaps more significantly,
she claimed that Maguesun Corporation intentionally omitted her name as an
adverse claimant, occupant or adjoining owner in the application for
registration submitted to the Land Registration Authority such that the latter
could not send her a Notice of Initial Hearing. As a result, an order of general
default was issued and Maguesun Corporations application for registration
was granted. She charged Maguesun Corporation with knowledge or
authorship of the fraud owing to the fact that Maguesun Corporations
president, Manolita Guevarra Suntay after whom the corporation was named,
was her niece. Manolita Suntay is the daughter of Lourdes Guevarra Suntay,
a deceased cousin of petitioner Vda. de Roxas who used to help with the
latters business affairs. Manolita Suntay used to take care of the regis tration
and insurance of the latters cars.6
The sole issue of the case, as laid down by the trial court after the pre-trial,
was whether or not Vda. de Roxas signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale
and the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication in favor of Zenaida Melliza were forged.7
Petitioner, who was then already 92 years of age, testified in open court on
February 11, 1992 that she has never met Zenaida Melliza, that she did not
sell the subject lots and that her signatures on the Deed of Sale and Affidavit
of Self-Adjudication were forged.8 A document examiner from the Philippine
National Police (PNP) concluded that there was no forgery.9 Upon petitioners
motion, the signatures were reexamined by another expert from the National
Bureau of Investigation. The latter testified that the signatures on the
questioned and sample documents were not written by the same person.10
Despite the foregoing testimonies and pronouncements, the trial court
dismissed the petition for review of decree of registration on April 15, 1992.11
Placing greater weight on the findings and testimony of the PNP document
examiner, it concluded that the questioned documents were not forged and if
they were, it was Zenaida Melliza, and not Maguesun Corporation, who was
responsible. Accordingly, Maguesun Corporation did not commit actual fraud.
The court further noted that petitioner Mrs. Trinidad Roxas had not been
paying taxes for several years, which fact exhibited what appeared to be
unmistakeable signs of not actually owning (the lots) any more, and that herapplication for registration was previously dismissed and abandoned, thus
indicating that petitioner herself is aware that she had already lost x x x
interest, if not actually her rights, over the property in question.12
In a decision dated December 8, 1994,13 respondent court denied the petition
for review and affirmed the findings of the trial court. The Court of Appeals
held that petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was actual or extrinsic
fraud, not merely constructive or intrinsic fraud, a prerequisite for purposes of
annulling a judgment or reviewing a decree of registration. Additionally,
respondent court stated that the discrepancies or irregularities in the Deed of
Sale and Affidavit of Self-Adjudication pointed out by petitioner are not patent
or obvious, involve matters that are too trivial, requiring knowledge of the
intricacies of the law and are not necessarily and exclusively indicia of
extrinsic fraud and/or bad faithespecially when considered in the light of
circumstances hereinafter discussed. The records also show, according to
the appellate court, that Maguesun Corporation had not concealed from the
court either the existence of petitioner or any interest she may have had in the
registration proceedings. Finally, the Court of Appeals ruled that publication of
the initial hearing in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon
the court.14
Hence, the instant petition for review where it is alleged that the Court of
Appeals erred in ruling that Maguesun Corporation did not commit actual
fraud warranting the setting aside of the registration decree and in resolving
the appeal on the basis of Maguesun Corporations good faith. Petitioners
pray that the registration of the subject lots in the name of Maguesun
Corporation be cancelled, that said property be adjudicated in favor of
petitioners and that respondent corporation pay moral damages not less than
P100,000.00, exemplary damages not less than P36,000.00 and attorneys
fees of P60,000.00.
We find the petition for review impressed with merit.
1. Registration of untitled land under the Torrens System is done pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Property Registration Decree which
amended and codified laws relative to registration of property.15 Adjudication
of land in a registration (or cadastral) case does not become final and
incontrovertible until the expiration of one year after the entry of the final
decree. Before such time, the decision remains under the control and sound
discretion of the court rendering the decree, which court after hearing, may set
aside the decision or decree and adjudicate the land to another party.16
Absence, minority or other disability of any person affected, or any proceeding
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
10/67
10 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
in court for reversing judgments, are not considered grounds to reopen or
revise said decree. However, the right of a person deprived of land or of any
estate or interest therein by adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by
actual fraud is recognized by law (Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529)
as a valid and legal basis for reopening and revising a decree of
registration.17 It is further required that a petition for reopening and review of
the decree of registration be filed within one year from the date of entry of said
decree, that the petitioner has a real and dominical right and the property has
not yet been transferred to an innocent purchaser.18
Fraud is of two kinds: actual or constructive. Actual or positive fraud proceeds
from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or
concealment of a material fact.19 Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud
because of its detrimental effect upon public interest and public or private
confidence, even though the act is not done or committed with an actual
design to commit positive fraud or injury upon other persons.20
Fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Fraud is regarded as intrinsic
where the fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or
where the acts constituting the fraud were or could have been litigated therein,
and is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or
from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters
pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured,
so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy.21 Extrinsic fraud is
also actual fraud, but collateral to the transaction sued upon.22
The distinctions are significant because only actual fraud or extrinsic fraud has
been accepted as grounds for a judgment to be annulled or, as in this case, a
decree of registration reopened and reviewed.23 In the oft-cited Macabingkil
v. Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation case, the Court drew fromAmerican jurisprudence stating that relief has been granted on the ground
that, by some fraud practiced directly upon the party seeking relief against the
judgment or decree, (and) that party has been prevented from presenting all
of his case to the court.24 The fraud contemplated by the law in this case
(Section 32, P.D. No. 1529) is actual and extrinsic, which includes an
intentional omission of fact required by law.25 For fraud to justify a review of a
decree, it must be extrinsic or collateral, and the facts upon which it is based
have not been controverted or resolved in the case where the judgment
sought to be annulled was rendered.26 Persons who were fraudulently
deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the original registration case are
entitled to a review of a decree of registration.
In Ramirez v. CA,27 this Court adopted the Court of Appeals ruling that the
suppression of the fact that the applicant spouses possessed the subject
ricefield merely as antichretic creditors and the fraudulent concealment and
misrepresentation in the application that no other persons had any claim or
interest in the said land, constitute specific allegations of extrinsic fraud
supported by competent proof. Failure and intentional omission of the
applicants to disclose the fact of actual physical possession by another person
constitutes an allegation of actual fraud.28 Likewise, it is fraud to knowingly
omit or conceal a fact, upon which benefit is obtained to the prejudice of a
third person.29
The Court here finds that respondent Maguesun Corporation committed actual
fraud in obtaining the decree of registration sought to be reviewed by
petitioner.
Petitioner Vda. de Roxas contended that Maguesun Corporation intentionally
omitted her name, or that of the Roxas family, as having a claim to or as an
occupant of the subject property. In the corporations application for
registration filed with the trial court in LRC No. TG-373, the following
declaration appears:
6. That the names in full and addresses, as far as known to the undersigned,
of the owners of all adjoining properties; of the persons mentioned in
paragraphs 3 and 5 (mortgagors, encumbrancers, and occupants) and of the
person shown on the plan as claimants are as follows:
Hilario Luna, Jose Gil, Leon Luna, Provincial Road all at Tagaytay City (no
house No.).30
The highlighted words are typed in with a different typewriter, with the first five
letters of the word provincial typed over correction fluid. Maguesun
Corporation, however, annexed a differently-worded application for the
petition to review case (Civil Case No. TG-1183, Trinidad de Leon Vda. de
Roxas v. Maguesun Management and Development Corporation, et al.). In
the copy submitted to the trial court, the answer to the same number is as
follows:
Hilario Luna, Jose Gil, Leon Luna, Roxas31.
The discrepancy which is unexplained appears intentional. If the word Roxas
were indeed erased and replaced with Pro-vincial Road all at Tagaytay City
(no house No.) in the original application submitted in LRC No. TG-373 but
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
11/67
11 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
the copy with the word Roxas was submitted to the trial court in Civil Case
No. TG-1183, it is reasonable to assume that the reason is to mislead the
court into thinking that Roxas was placed in the original application as an
adjoining owner, encum-brancer, occupant or claimant, the same application
which formed the basis for the Land Registration Authority in sending out
notices of initial hearing. Section 15 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 also
requires the applicant for registration to state the full names and addresses of
all occupants of the land and those of adjoining owners, if known and if not
known, the extent of the search made to find them. Respondent corporation
likewise failed to comply with this requirement of law.
The truth is that the Roxas family had been in possession of the property
uninterruptedly through their caretaker, Jose Ramirez.32 Respondent
Maguesun Corporation also declared in number 5 of the same application that
the subject land was unoccupied when in truth and in fact, the Roxas family
caretaker resided in the subject property. Respondent corporation is likewise
charged with the knowledge of such possession and occupancy, for its
President, who signed the Deed of Sale over the property, knew fully well that
her grandaunt Trinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas owned the property. It isreasonable to expect her as a buyer to have inspected the property prior to
the sale such that the ascertainment of the current possessors or occupants
could have been made facilely. Respondent corpora tions intentional
concealment and representation of peti-tioners interest in the subject lots as
possessor, occupant and claimant constitutes actual fraud justifying the
reopening and review of the decree of registration. Through such
misfeasance, the Roxas family was kept ignorant of the registration
proceedings involving their property, thus effectively depriving them of their
day in court.
2. Respondent Court of Appeals held that Maguesun Corporation had notconcealed from the court either the existence of Trinidad de Leon Vda. de
Roxas or any interest she may have in the registration proceedings for the
records are replete with references by Maguesun Corporation itself to
petitioner.33 Mention of the late Presidents name as well as that of petitioner
was made principally in the Formal Offer of Exhibits for respondent
corporation, in a Copy of Plan of Lots 7231 and 7239, tax declarations and as
predecessor-in-interest. However, this is not sufficient compliance with what
the law requires to be stated in the application for registration. Disclosure of
petitioners adverse interest, occupation and possession should be made at
the appropriate time, i.e., at the time of the application for registration,
otherwise, the persons concerned will not be sent notices of the initial hearing
and will, therefore, miss the opportunity to present their opposition or claims.
3. Publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing was made in the Official Gazette
and in the Record Newsweekly, admittedly not a newspaper of general
circulation. The Court of Appeals held that pursuant to Section 23 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529, publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to
confer jurisdiction. Said provision of law expressly states that the
Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a notice of initial hearing to be
published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines. Provided, however, that the publication in the
Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. x x x
While publication of the notice in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer
jurisdiction upon the court, publication in a newspaper of general circulation
remains an indispensable procedural requirement. Couched in mandatory
terms, it is a component of procedural due process and aimed at giving as
wide publicity as possible so that all persons having an adverse interest in
the land subject of the registration proceedings may be notified thereof.34
Although jurisdiction of the court is not affected, the fact that publication was
not made in a newspaper of general circulation is material and relevant in
assessing the applicants right or title to the land.
4. The allegations of forgery and the discrepancies in the documentary, as
well as in the testimonial evidence regarding this issue which are all crucial to
this case, compelled the Court to undertake a careful review of the facts of the
case.35 A close scrutiny of the evidence on record leads the Court to the
irresistible conclusion that forgery was indeed attendant in the case at bar.
Although there is no proof of respondent Maguesun Corporations direct
participation in the execution and preparation of the forged instruments, thereare sufficient indicia which proves that Maguesun Corporation is not the
innocent purchaser for value who merits the protection of the law.
In response to the questions fielded by the trial court and by counsel for
petitioner, PNP Document Examiner Zacarias Semacio sought to explain all
the differences pointed out in the questioned signatures and in the sample
signatures as having been caused merely by natural variation.36 He
concluded that the questioned signatures were not forged. In contrast, Chief
of the Questioned Documents Division of the National Bureau of Investigation,
Arcadio Ramos, testified with more specificity as befits an expert that the
questioned and sample signatures were not written by one and the same
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
12/67
12 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
person because of (t)he manner of execution of strokes; the personalized
proportional characteristics of letters; the link-ing/connecting between letters;
the structural pattern of letters and other minute details x x x.37 Moreover,
petitioner Trinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas categorically declared that she has
never met Zenaida Melliza and did not sell the subject property.38 Petitioner,
then over ninety years old, has no motive to attest to a falsehood. Petitioner
and her family also own several other pieces of property, some of which are
leased out as restaurants, e.g. Leos Res taurant and Ma Mon Luk
Restaurant.39 This is an indication that petitioner is not unaware of the value
of her properties. Hence, it is unlikely that she would sell over thirteen
thousand square meters of prime property in Tagaytay City to a stranger for a
measly P200,000.00. Finally, even to a laymans eye, the documents, as well
as the enlarged photographic exhibit of the signatures, reveal forgery. The
questioned signatures taken from the Deed of Sale and Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication are starkly different from the sample signatures in several
documents executed by petitioner. The questioned signatures are smooth and
rounded and have none of the jagged and shaky character of petitioners
signatures, characteristic of the penmanship of elderly persons.
There are also added considerations reflective of the dubious character of the
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication purportedly executed by petitioner.40 In it she
declares that she is a resident of 22 8th Street, New Manila, Quezon City,
when she actually lives in 2 Park Road, North Forbes Park, Makati. She also
states that she is the sole heir of the late Manuel De Roxas who died
sometime on the year 1944 at Manila. Petitioners husband is President
Manuel A. Roxas and she refers to herself as Trinidad de Leon Vda. de
Roxas. President Roxas was survived by petitioner and their two children, Ma.
Rosario Roxas and Gerardo Roxas (who predeceased petitioner). The fact
that petitioner was not the sole heir was known to the general public, as well
as the demise of the late President on April 15, 1946 while delivering a
speech at Clark Field, Pampanga. The aforementioned irregularities are too
glaring to have been ignored. If petitioner did in fact execute said Affidavit,
there is no reason why she should state facts other than the unadulterated
truth concerning herself and her family.
Additionally, Zenaida Mellizas non-appearance raises doubt as to her
existence. Her given address was Matina, Davao City. How was she related to
petitioner and what led her to purchase the subject property? Respondent
corporation could very well have presented her to prove the legitimacy of their
transaction. If petitioner were selling said property, would she not have offered
them first to interested relatives such as Manolita G. Suntay? Would an
ordinary person sell more than thirteen thousand square meters of prime
property for P170,000.00 when it was earlier purchased for P200,000.00?
These questions highlight several implausibilities in the alleged sale of the
subject property by herein petitioner. As Maguesun Corporations President
who is related to petitioner, Manolita G. Suntay should have verified the sale
of the subject property by Zenaida Melliza. Manolita G. Suntays closeness to
petitioner Vda. de Roxas, as one who even regis tered the latters car,
suggests acquaintance with the late petitioners properties as well as the
possibility that she took advantage of such knowledge.
From the foregoing, it is quite clear that respondent corporation cannot tack its
possession to that of petitioner as predecessor-in-interest. Zenaida Melliza
conveyed no title over the subject parcels of land to Maguesun Corporation as
she was not the owner thereof.41 Maguesun Corporation is thus not entitled
to the registration decree which the trial court granted in its decision. Palpably,
petitioner has not been interrupted in her more than thirty years of open,
uninterrupted, exclusive and notorious possession in the concept of an owner
over the subject lots by the irregular transaction to Zenaida Melliza. She
therefore retains title proper and sufficient for original registration over the twoparcels of land in question pursuant to Section 14 of Presidential Decree No.
1529.42
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV No. 38328 (Trinidad de Leon Vda. de
Roxas v. Maguesun Management & Development Corporation, et al.)
promulgated on December 8, 1994 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, registration of title over the subject parcels of land, described in
Plan AS-04-000108, Lot Nos. 7231 and 7239, with an area of 3,461 and
10,674 square meters, respectively, as shown and supported by the
corresponding technical descriptions now forming part of the Records of LRCNo. TG-373, is awarded to herein petitioner Trinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas
and her heirs, herein substituted as petitioners. Upon finality of this Decision,
the Land Registration Authority is hereby directed to ISSUE with reasonable
dispatch the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title
pursuant to Section 39 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition granted.
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
13/67
13 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
Note.The principle of indefeasibility of title is unavailing where there was
fraud that attended the issuance of the free patents and titles. (Meneses vs.
Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 162 [1995])
o0o
Copyright 2012 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved. [Heirs ofManuel A. Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 309(1997)]
G.R. No. 85515. June 6, 1991.*
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. FLORENCIA
MARASIGAN, and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Land Registration; Reconstitution; Respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred
in affirming the order of the trial court granting the petition and in holding that
Section 13 has been at least impliedly amended by Section 23 in relation to
Section 110 of P.D. 1529.Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 has not been altered,
modified or amended. Since the requirement therein of service of notice of the
initial hearing to the adjoining owners and the actual occupants of the land
was not complied with in this case, the court below did not, therefore, acquire
jurisdiction over the petition for the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 66062. Accordingly, the respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in
affirming the Order of the trial court granting the petition and in holding that
said Section 13 has been at least impliedly amended by Section 23 in
relation to Section 110 of P.D. No. 1529 which took effect on 11 June 1978.
Same; Same; Same; View that Section 13 of RA No. 26 appears to have
been at least impliedly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1529 totallyunfounded.We further find to be totally unfounded the view of the Court of
Appeals that Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 appears to have been at least
impliedly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1529. There is absolutely
nothing in P.D. No. 1529 which intimates or suggests, indirectly or even
remotely, an intention to amend said Section 13.
Same; Same; Same; Requirements of Section 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26
mandatory and jurisdictional.In Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, et
al., We ruled that the requirements of Section 12 and Section 13 of R.A. No.
26 are mandatory and jurisdictional and noncompliance therewith would
render all proceedings utterly null and void.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Section 23 of PD No. 1529 never meant to
dispense with the requirement of notice by mailing and by posting.This
proviso was never meant to dispense with the requirement of notice by
mailing and by posting. What it simply means is that in so far as publication is
concerned, there is sufficient compliance if the notice is published in the
Official Gazette, although the law mandates that it be published once in the
Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines. However, publication in the latter alone would not suffice. This is
to accord primacy to the official publication.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Argument of respondent Court of Appeals
that it would be unfair to impose upon the private respondent the duty to
comply with the requirement of service of notice unacceptable.The
belabored argument of respondent Court of Appeals that it would be unfair to
impose upon the private respondent the duty to comply with the requirement
of service of notice because it was not through her fault that the original copy
of the Transfer Certificate of Title was lost is unacceptable since the law does
not make any exception or exemptions; besides, it is, to say the least, a
ludicrous proposition. Equally unacceptable is the opinion of said Court that itwas the duty of the trial court to serve the required notices and private
respondent should not be prejudiced if it failed to do so. It suggests, quite
unfortunately, and gives the wrong impression that mandatory requirements of
notices may be dispensed with if the failure to comply with them is attributable
to the court. It likewise negates the principles of responsibility, integrity, loyalty
and efficiency which the Constitution directs public officials and employees to
faithfully observe. We should stress here that lapses on the part of courts or
their personnel cannot be made a reason or a justification for non-observance
of laws. By the very nature of their functions, they should be the first to obey
the laws.
PETITION for review by certiorari from the decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals. Melo, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
J. Renato V. Leviste for private respondent.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
14/67
14 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to set aside
the Decision of 29 August 19881 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
15163 2 and its Resolution of 18 October 19883 which, respectively, affirmed
the Order of Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro, Fourth
Judicial Region, of 17 June 19874 granting the petition of private respondent
for the reconstitution of the original and the owners duplicate copies of a
transfer certificate of title despite lack of service of notices to adjoining owners
and the actual occupants of the land, and denied petitioners motion for the
reconsideration of the Decision.5
The issue in this petition is whether notices to adjoining owners and the actual
occupants of the land are mandatory and jurisdictional in judicial reconstitution
of certificates of title.
On 4 November 1986 private respondent, claiming to be one of the heirs of
Epifania Alcano, registered owner of a parcel of land located in Canubing,
Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, containing an area of 33,294 square meters, and
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-66062 in the Registry of Deeds
of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, filed a petition for the reconstitution of the
original and duplicate copy (sic) of the said Transfer Certificate of Title on the
basis of the owners duplicate copy.6 She alleged therein that she is in
possession of the title subject matter of the petition but she, however, did not
allege the reason why she asked for the reconstitution.
In its Order of 4 November 1986 the trial court set the petition for hearing and
required its publication in the Official Gazette, which was done. Required
notices, except to the adjoining owners and the actual occupants of the land,
were given.
Upon prior authority of the trial court, reception of private respondents
evidence was made by the OIC-Branch Clerk of Court. Thereafter, on 17 June
1987, the trial court handed down an Order7 which made the following
findings of facts:
From the evidence adduced by the petitioner, it appears that she is one of
the vendees of a certain parcel of land s ituated in Malamig, Calapan, Oriental
Mindoro, containing an area of 33,294 square meters, embraced in and
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-66062 and registered in the
name of Epifania Alcano (Exh. B) as evidenced by a document of sale
executed by the registered owner (Exh. I). The origina l copy of said title
which was usually kept in the Office of the Register of Deeds of this province
was destroyed by reason of the fire which razed to the ground the entire
Capitol Building then housing said office on August 12, 1977 (Exh. C). It
appears further that there are no co-owners, mortgagees, lessees duplicate
copy of said certificate of title which had been previously issued by the
Register of Deeds of this province; that the petitioner is in actual possession
of the area of 16,647 square meters which was sold to her and that she is
benefitting from the produce of the improvements existing on the area
belonging to her.
and disquisition:
Accordingly, finding the instant petition to be well-founded and there being no
opposition to its approval, same is hereby granted. The Register of Deeds of
this province is hereby directed to reconstitute the original and the owners
duplicate copies of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-66062 in the name of the
registered owners (sic) thirty days after receipt of this Order by the Register of
Deeds of this province and the Commissioner of the Land Registration
Commission, on the basis of the existing owners duplicate copy thereof.
Petitioner herein, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed from
said Order to the Court of Appeals and made the following assignment of
errors:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACQUIRING JURISDICTION OVER THE
INSTANT PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION OF THE ORIGINAL AND THE
OWNERS DUPLICATE COPIES OF TCT NO. T-66062 WITHOUT THE
REQUISITE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ADJOINING
OWNERS AND ACTUAL OCCUPANTS OF THE LAND AS REQUIRED BY
SECTION 13 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 26.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR
RECONSTITUTION.8
The appeal was docketed as C.A.-G.R. CV No. 15163.
In support of the first assigned error, petitioner maintained that the
requirement of Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 is not only mandatory but
jurisdictional as held in MWSS vs. Sison, et al., 124 SCRA 394.
In its Decision of 29 August 19889 respondent Court of Appeals brushed
aside the arguments of petitioner and held that:
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
15/67
15 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
1) Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 which requires the sending out of notices to the
adjoining owners and actual occupants to vest jurisdiction, appears to have
been at least impliedly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1529 because it
is inconsistent with Section 23 of said Decree which provides that in original
registration cases publication of notices of initial hearing in the Official Gazette
is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. Section 110 of said Decree
provides:
SEC. 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens Title.
Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in offices of Register of
Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting such titles shall be
reconstituted judicially in accordance with the procedure prescribed in
Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with this Decree. (emphasis
supplied)
2) The MWSS vs. Sison case is not on all fours with the instant case for in the
former both the original and the owners duplicate copies of the certificate of
title were claimed to be lost, unlike in the instant case where the duplicate
copy is intact; it was not shown that the original copy in the custody of the
Register of Deeds was destroyed; the copies of the titles alleged to have been
lost were later found intact in the names of other persons; and, more
importantly, the Petition was not published in the Official Gazette but in the
Manila Daily Bulletin, unlike in the instant case.
3) The duty to send notices to adjoining owners and actual occupants is
imposed upon the court, not the party filing the petition for reconstitution
(herein private respondent); any lapse in regard thereto should not prejudice
or injure the latter.
4) Finally, in the instant case, the private respondent cannot be blamed for the
loss of the original copy of the transfer certificate of title; it was lost by reason
of the burning of the Capitol Building; she should not, therefore, be put to
trouble, anxiety and expenses.
Petitioners motion to reconsider the Decision having been denied by the
Court of Appeals in its Resolution of 18 October 1988, petitioner filed the
instant petition on 22 December 1988 alleging therein that:
a. The respondent Honorable Court of Appeals acted contrary to law when it
did not consider that the trial court is without jurisdiction over the instant
petition for reconstitution of the original owners (sic) duplicate copies of TCT
No. 66062 as there is no requisite service of notice of hearing to the adjoining
owners and actual occupants of the land as required by Section 13 of R.A.
No. 26;
b. The respondent Honorable Court of Appeals acted contrary to law in
granting the petition for reconstitution of the original and duplicate copies of
TCT No. 66062.
In Our resolution of 16 January 1989,10 We required the respondents to
comment on the petition. Private respondent filed her comment on 10February 1989.11 She practically copied therein the questioned decision of
respondent Court of Appeals.
In Our resolution of 15 March 1989 We gave due course to the petition and
required the parties to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda,
which petitioner complied with on 3 July 198912 and private respondent on 10
June 1989.13
The petition is impressed with merit.
The questioned Decision of 29 August 1988 and the Resolution of 18 October1988 of respondent Court of Appeals, as well as the Order of Branch 39 of the
Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro of 17 June 1987, must be set aside.
Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 has not been altered, modified or amended. Since
the requirement therein of service of notice of the initial hearing to the
adjoining owners and the actual occupants of the land was not complied with
in this case, the court below did not, therefore, acquire jurisdiction over the
petition for the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 66062.
Accordingly, the respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the
Order of the trial court granting the petition and in holding that said Section 13
has been at least impliedly amended by Section 23 in relation to Section 110of P.D. No. 1529 which took effect on 11 June 1978.
In Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,14 We ruled that the
requirements of Section 12 and Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 reading as follows:
SEC. 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in sections 2
(c), 2 (d), 2 (e), 2 (f), 3 (c), 3 (e) and/or 3 (f) of this Act, shall be filed with the
proper Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any
person having an interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain,
among other things, the following: (a) that the owners duplicate of the
certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no co-owners
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
16/67
16 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
mortgagees or lessees duplicate had been issued, or, if any had been
issued, the same had been lost or destroyed; (c) the location, area and
boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and description of the buildings or
improvements, if any, which do not belong to the owner of the land, and the
names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements; (e)
the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the
property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and of all persons who may
have any interest in the property; (f) a detailed description of the
encumbrances, if any, affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no
deeds or other instruments affecting the property have been presented for
registration, or, if there be any, the registration thereof has not been
accomplished, as yet. All the documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to
be introduced in evidence in support of the petition for reconstitution shall be
attached thereto and filed with the same: Provided, That in case the
reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources enumerated in section 2
(f) or 3 (f) of this Act, the petition shall be further accompanied with a plan and
technical description of the property duly approved by the Chief of the General
Land Registration Office, or with a certified copy of the description taken from
a prior certificate of title covering the same property.
SEC. 13. The court shall cause a notice of petition, filed under the preceding
section, to be published, at the expense of the petition, twice in successive
issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the
provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in
which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. The
court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail or
otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein
whose address is known, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Said
notice shall state, among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed
certificates of title, if known, the name of the registered owner, the name of
the occupants or person in possession of the property, the owner of the
adjoining properties and all other interested parties, the location, area and
boundaries of the property, and the date on which all persons having any
interest therein must appear and file their claim or objection to the petition.
The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication, posting
and service of the notice as directed by the court.
are mandatory and jurisdictional and non-compliance therewith would render
all proceedings utterly null and void. We reiterated this rule in Tahanan
Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.15 where, in respect
particularly to the required notice to an adjoining owner, We categorically
declared:
The failure or omission to notify Tahanan as the owner, possessor or
occupant of property adjacent to Lot 2 or as claimant or person having
interest, title or claim to a substantial portion (about 9 hectares more or less)
of Lot 2, as well as the failure or omission to post copies of the Notice of
Hearing on the main entrance of the municipality (sic) on which the land is
situated, at the provincial building and at the municipal building thereat, are
fatal to the acquisition and exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.
In MWSS vs. Sison et al., supra., We further re-affirmed the foregoing
doctrine:
The publication of the petition in two successive issues of the Official
Gazette, the service of the notice of hearing to the adjoining owners and
actual occupants of the land, as well as the posting of the notices in the main
entrance of the provincial and municipal buildings where the property lies at
least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing, as prescribed by Section 13 of
the law, are mandatory and jurisdictional requisites.
This re-affirmation is clear enough as to leave no room for any convoluted
logic to support a sophistic distinction between said case and the instant case
and an implausible interpretation of the law.
We further find to be totally unfounded the view of the Court of Appeals that
Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 appears to have been at least impliedly amended
by Presidential Decree No. 1529. There is absolutely nothing in P.D. No.
1529 which intimates or suggests, indirectly or even remotely, an intention to
amend said Section 13. The Court of Appeals either misapprehended or read
out of context that portion of Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 reading as follows:
x x x that the publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer
jurisdiction upon the court.
Worse, it committed a serious blunder when it used this clause to support its
proposition of implied amendment of Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 by virtue of
Section 110 of the Decree.
Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 is entitled Notice of initial hearing, publication,
etc. and provides, inter alia, that:
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
17/67
17 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
The public shall be given notice of initial hearing of the application for land
registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.
As regards publication, it specifically provides:
Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the
Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a notice of initial hearing to be
published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, that the publication in theOfficial Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. x x x
This proviso was never meant to dispense with the requirement of notice by
mailing and by posting. What it simply means is that in so far as publication is
concerned, there is sufficient compliance if the notice is published in the
Official Gazette, although the law mandates that it be published once in the
Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines. However, publication in the latter alone would not suffice. This is
to accord primacy to the official publication.
That such proviso was never meant to dispense with the other modes ofgiving notice, which remain mandatory and jurisdictional, is obvious from
Section 23 itself. If the intention of the law were otherwise, said section would
not have stressed in detail the requirements of mailing of notices to all
persons named in the petition who, per Section 15 of the Decree, include
owners of adjoining properties, and occupants of the land.
The above view of the Court of Appeals negates one of the principal purposes
of the Decree, which is clearly expressed in its exordium, namely, to
strengthen the Torrens System through safeguards to prevent anomalous
titling of real property. It opens wide the doors to fraud and irregularities in
land registration proceedings and in proceedings for the reconstitution of
certificates of title. Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that only very few
have access to or could read the Official Gazette, which comes out in few
copies only per issue. If publication in the Official Gazette of the notice of
hearing in both proceedings would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the
court, owners of both unregistered and registered lands may someday
painfully find out that others have certificates of title to their land because
scheming parties had caused their registration, or secured reconstituted
certificates of title thereto and sold the property to third parties.
The belabored argument of respondent Court of Appeals that it would be
unfair to impose upon the private respondent the duty to comply with the
requirement of service of notice because it was not through her fault that the
original copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title was lost is unacceptable since
the law does not make any exception or exemptions; besides, it is, to say the
least, a ludicrous proposition. Equally unacceptable is the opinion of said
Court that it was the duty of the trial court to serve the required notices and
private respondent should not be prejudiced if it failed to do so. It suggests,
quite unfortunately, and gives the wrong impression that mandatory
requirements of notices may be dispensed with if the failure to comply with
them is attributable to the court. It likewise negates the principles of
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency which the Constitution directs
public officials and employees to faithfully observe. We should stress here that
lapses on the part of courts or their personnel cannot be made a reason or a
justification for non-observance of laws. By the very nature of their functions,
they should be the first to obey the laws.
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered
GRANTING the instant petition and SETTING ASIDE the Decision of 29
August 1988 and the Resolution of 18 October 1988 of respondent Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 15163 and the Order of Branch No. 39 of theRegional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro, Fourth Judicial Region in Petition
No. 11,456. Costs against private respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan (C.J.), Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Bidin, JJ., concur.
Petition granted and decision and resolustion set aside.
Note.Publication of the notice of hearing in the Official Gazette at least 30
days before the hearing of a petition for reconstitution of title is a mandatory
requirement that confers jurisdiction upon the court. Any defect in such
publication deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the petition. (Register of
Deeds of Malabon vs. RTC, Malabon, MM, Br. 170, 181 SCRA 788.)
o0o
Copyright 2012 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved. [Republic vs.
Marasigan, 198 SCRA 219(1991)]
-
7/31/2019 Ltd Cases Hw3
18/67
18 | L T D C a s e s H W 3
[No. 8539. December 24, 1914.]
MARIA DEL CONSUELO FELISA ROXAS Y CHUIDIAN, petitioner and
appellee, vs. RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ ET AL., objectors and appellants.
1.REGISTRATION OF LAND; NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS IN.The proceedings for the
registration of land, under Act No. 496, are in rem and not in personam. A proceeding 'in rem,
dealing with a tangible res, may be in stituted and carried to judgment, without personal service
upon the claimants within the state or notice by name to those outside of it. Jurisdiction is
secured by the power of the court over the res. Such a proceeding would be impossible were
this not so, for it would hardly do to make a distinction between the constitutional rights of the
claimants who were known and those who were not known to the plaintiff, when the proceeding
is to bar all. (Tyler vs. Judges, 175 Mass., 71; Grey Alba vs. De la Cruz, 17 Phil. Rep., 49.)
2.ID.; TORRENS SYSTEM; PURPOSE AND EFFECT.The real purpose of the Torrens Land
Registration system is to relieve the land of the burden of known as well as unknown claims. I f
there exist known and just claims against the title of the applicant, for the registration of his
land under the Torrens systems, he gains nothing in effect by his registration, except in the
simplicity of subsequent transfers of his title. The registration either relieves the land of all
known as well as unknown claims absolutely, or it compels the claimants to come into court
and to make there a record, so that thereafter there may be no uncertainty concerning eitherthe character or the extent of such claims.
3.ID.; ID.; NOTICE OF APPLICATION.The requirement that personal notice shall be a
prerequisite to the validity of registration would absolutely prohibit the foreclosure of unknown
claims, for the reason that personal notice could never be given to "unknown claimants." The
great difficulty in land titles arises from the existence of possible unknown claimants. Known
claimants can be dealt with. They furnish no valid impediment, in fact, to the transfer of title.
Courts have held that in actions in rem, personal notice to owners of a res is not necessary to
give the courts jurisdiction to deal with and to dispose of the res. It is admitted in the present
case that the petitioner was not guilty of fraud. The record shows that she named all persons
who might have any interest in the registration of her land. She is not charged even with
negligence. She did all the law required her to do.
4.ID.; ID,; ID.; PERSONAL NOTICE.Looked at either from the point of view of history or of
the necessary requirements of justice, & proceeding in rem, dealing with a tangible res, may be
instituted and carried to judgment without personal service upon the claimants within the state,
or notice by name to those outside of it and not encounter any provision of the fundamental law
of the land, Jurisdiction is secured by the power of the court over the res. Proceedings in the
land court for the registration of land would be impossible were this not so, for it hardly would
do to make a distinction between the constitutional rights of claimants who were known and
those who were not known to the plaintiff, when the purpose of the proceeding is to bar all.
5.ID.; ID.; STATE CONTROL OVER PROPERTY.The law, even before the Torrens Law,
provided means by which title to land might be quieted "by notice by publication to all
persons." Even before the Torrens Law was adopted, the state had the power and right to
provide a procedure for the adjudication of title to real estate. Th