LTD (2015) Cases

Days 10 and 11
GENEROSO MENDOZA vs.
CA, DANIEL GOLE CRUZ and DOLORES MENDOZA
G.R. No. L-36637 July 14, 1978
SANTOS, J.:
NATURE: Petition for review by certiorari seeks the reversal of the decision of the CA
dated February 27, 1973 in CA-G.R. No. 46581-R, which upheld the registration in the
names of Daniel Gole Cruz and Dolores Mendoza, purchasers of the landholdings subject
matter of an application for registration, notwithstanding that they were not parties in
the original registration proceedings.
FACTS:
 May 15, 1964, Generoso Mendoza filed with the CFI of Bulacan an application for the
registration of two parcels of land, with a residential house thereon, situated in the
Poblacion of Sta. Maria Bulacan.
 A notice was issued on December 3, 1964
 The date of initial hearing was set on June 18, 1965.
 Said notice was duly published, posted and served but nobody appeared nor filed an
answer or opposition within the period allowed for that purpose.
 Consequently, the registration court entered on July 6, 1965, an order of general
default and allowed the applicant to present his evidence ex-parte.
 Evidence presented proved:
1. That Generoso and his wife, Diega de Leon, were the owners of the parcels of
land subject of the application but the same were sold by them, during the
pendency of the case, to the spouses Daniel Gole Cruz and Dolores Mendoza,
subject to the vendors' usufructuary rights.
2. The deed of sale was presented (carbon copy)
 On the basis of such evidence, the registration court on July 21, 1965, ordered the
registration of the 2 parcels of land in the names of the vendees, Daniel Gole Cruz and
Dolores Mendoza, subject to the usufructuary rights of the vendors, Generoso Mendoza
and Diega de Leon.
 On the same day, a copy of said decision was received by Generoso Mendoza.
 On November 5, 1965. Generoso Mendoza filed a motion for the issuance of the
decree.
 On May 16, 1967, Decree No. 114454 was issued confirming the title to the land of
vendees Daniel Gole Cruz and Dolores Mendoza, and ordering the registration of the
same in their names, subject to the usufructuary rights of the vendors.
 Consequently, Original Certificate of Title No. 0-3787 was issued to spouses Daniel Gole
Cruz and Dolores Mendoza.

 On April 16, 1968, Generoso Mendoza filed an urgent petition for reconsideration
praying that the decision (order for registration in the names of private respondents)
and the decree issued on May 16, 1967 be set aside and that Original Certificate of
Title No. 03787 be cancelled, on the ground that the vendees/ the registered owners
had failed to pay the purchase price of the lands.
 The registration court considered said urgent petition for reconsideration as a
petition for review of the decree and set aside its decision, its order for the issuance of
the decree, and the decree of registration, on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction
to order the registration of the lands in the names of the vendees, who were not parties
to the application for registration.
 Moreover, said court ordered the cancellation of O.C.T. No. 03787 and directed the
registration of the lands in the names of spouses, Generoso Mendoza and Diega de Leon,
subject to the rights of vendees, Daniel Gole Cruz and Dolores Mendoza, stated in the
deed of sale.
 On September 17, 1968, spouses Cruz and Mendoza moved to reconsider the order=
MR denied on October 17, 1968.
 On December 19, 1968, spouses Cruz appealed from the order;Mendoza filed a motion
to dismiss the appeal =the registration court dismissed the appeal.
 The spouses Cruz and Mendoza then filed with the CAa special civil action for
certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, which was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 43250-R.
 The CArendered decision, on February 27, 1973, setting aside the order of the land
registration court. It also denied applicant Mendoza's petition for reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether the registration of the lots in the names of the vendees is valid.
HELD: YES

1

Because on October 15. it was the petitioner himself. Ricardo Cruz. my husband and Daniel Gole Cruz and and his wife. Mr. Q: was there any transaction that took place? A. he himself produced evidence that on October 15. who were neither the applicants nor the oppositors in the registration case below Q. we sold this property to them with one of the conditions that until my husband and myself or anyone of us die. Q: if you know the carbon copy of the deed of sale? A. This was done by him despite the fact that he could easily have the land registered in his name — as an order of general default had been issued and the hearing on the application for registration had been conducted EX-PARTE. we will live with them. applicant-petitioner even presented the private respondent Daniel Gole Cruz to confirm the aforesaid sale of the subject property. A.1964 he and his wife sold the Land in favor of the spouses Daniel Gole Cruz and Dolores Mendoza for the amount of P6. and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. 1964. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings. Yes sir. Daniel Gole Cruz.  Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" be a party to the case.00 payable in installments. Dolores Mendoza are in actual possession of the same.  Petitioner himself caused the registration of the land in the names of private respondents. At the hearing. 2. Do you know who are now in possession of these properties.000.  The Deed of Sale was duly presented to the registration court for consideration. and private respondent. Diega de Leon. I. the petitioner even filed the motion for the issuance of the decree of confirmation of title after having 2 . And the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements have been complied with. as if to fully convince the court of the fact of sale. Yes sir that is the carbon copy of the deed of sale I have just mentioned. who presented the deed of sale to the court and testified before the same that he did sell the land to the private respondents.LTD (2015) Cases Petitioner 1. Finally. Firstly. Secondly. We.  Furthermore. SC  The records of the case belie petitioner's claim that he did not testify relative to the deed of sale. 1965 all too clearly show that petitioner and his wife testified before the deputed commissioner. that they sold the property sought to be registered to the private respondents.  Generoso Mendoza was the original applicant in this case. Insisted that he could not be deemed to have caused the registration of the land in the names of private respondents as he never testified in court having sold the same to said Private respondents He claimed that he never testified in court as having sold the property to the herein private respondents. Q. petitioner presented his wife.  The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application. we have sold these two parcels of land to Daniel Gole Cruz and his wife Dolores Mendoza. to confirm the said sale of the land and the stipulated usufructuary rights.  Petitioner overlooks Section 29 of the Land Registration Act which expressly authorizes the registration of the land subject matter of a registration proceeding in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the land has been conveyed by an instrument executed during the interval of time between the filing of the application for registration and the issuance of the decree of title  The law does not require that the application for registration be amended by substituting the "buyer" or the person to whom the property has been conveyed" for the applicant.  The transcript of the stenographic notes of the hearing on the application for registration held on July 6. Why are Daniel Gole Cruz and Dolores Mendoza co-possessing with you these two parcels of land? A. That the registration court could not legally order the registration of the land in the names of the vendees-respondents.

And the above. sufficient compliance with the first requirement of the law.R. No. judgments or decree: subject. private and proper for registration. Such decree shall not be opened by respondents. substituted by NATURE: Petition to set aside the CA’s Decision promulgated on July 3. July 28. But as correctly held by respondent Court of Appeals:  Breach of contract is not a ground for a petition for a review. If the court after hearing finds that the applicant or adverse claimant has title as stated in his application or adverse claim perpetrated by the vendees. nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing the purchase price of the landholdings. a decree of confirmation and registration shall be entered. There was.LTD (2015) Cases received the decision of the court ordering the registration of the title to the land in the names of vendeesrespondents. since nobody filed an opposition to the application for registration. MARIBEL. 23719. ARNOLD and MARY ANN (ABISTADO) Resolution promulgated on November 19. MARISSA. (Emphasis supplied. . But the law does not require that the motion accompanying the presentation of the instrument be in writing. infancy. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. Thus. or other disability of any person affected thereby. In view thereof. 102858.  Since there was sufficient compliance with the aforestated requirements of the law. should be rescinded for the alleged failure of the vendees to pay the purchase price. 1991 and the subsequent MARGARITA. . That respondent Court of Appeals erred in  Without merit. err in holding that the lower court had jurisdiction to order the registration of the lands in the names of vendees-respondents. 1991 by Respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.  Anent the second requirement of prior notice to the parties. subject only to the stipulated usufructuary rights of the petitioner and his wife. as the only party with a legal standing in the proceedings. herein. CA and TEODORO ABISTADO.R. however. subject to the stipulated usufructuary rights — thereby signifying his full assent to the same. who allegedly failed to pay reason of the absence. CV G. applicant-petitioner cannot complain of fraud in obtaining the decree of registration for as heretofore stated. no legal objection to the court's jurisdiction to order the registration of the lands in the names of vendees-respondents may be interposed on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement of prior notice to the parties. And the registration court has no jurisdiction to decide the contentious issue of whether or not the deed of sale.)  only ground upon which a decree of registration may be set aside is fraud in obtaining the decree of confirmation and registration  In the instant case... Section 38 of the Land Registration Act provides as follows — holding that he was not the victim of fraud SEC. 3. The issue on the breach of contract has to be letigated in the ordinary court. therefore. therefore. 1997 No.  What the applicant-petitioner actually invokes in this case is not fraud in obtaining the decree of registration but the alleged failure of the vendees-respondents to pay the purchase price of the landholdings.respondents. it was solely upon his testimony and proof that the lots were ordered registered in the names of the vendeesrespondents and it was also upon his motion that the decree of registration was issued by the lower court.: 3 . A order of general default had been issued prior to the presentation of the deed of sale by the applicant-petitioner.  It is true that no written motion was filed seeking the consideration of the deed of sale in relation with the application for registration.. J.enumerated acts of the applicant-petitioner and the circumstances surrounding the same accept of no interpretation than that the applicant-petitioner did in fact move the court to order the registration of the title to the land in the names of vendees. to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the competent Court of First Instance a petition for review within one year after entry of the decree provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest. respondent Court of Appeals did not. 38. PANGANIBAN.. the only person who should have been entitled to a notice from the court was the applicant-petitioner himself.

4 . This is an application for want of compliance with the mandatory provision error. decision of the trial court and ordered the registration of the title in the name of Court noted that applicants failed to comply with the provisions of Teodoro Abistado. Series of 1982. were complied with Gazette is necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the and these are sufficient to notify any party who is trial court. continuous. and (3) posting. we shall treat his petition as one for review under Rule 45. open. the notice of initial hearing shall be published publication in a newspaper of general circulation is a mere circulation. both in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of procedural defect. 48. Gazette. during the pendency of his petition. (LRC) No. (2) mailing. refers to publication not only in the Official Gazette but also in a newspaper of general circulation.  However. of due process.  That other requirement of: publication in the Official general circulation. SC  Newspaper Publication Mandatory Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. and is jurisdictional. 1991.  The Director of Lands represented by the Solicitor General thus elevated the case to SC. not for certiorari under Rule 65. Hence. any decision that the court may promulgate in the case would Regional Trial Court of Mamburao. Philippines. HELD: YES. It was only published in the Official Gazette The Court has not legally acquired jurisdiction over the instant This Court notes that the petitioners counsel anchored his petition on Rule 65.[9]  The trial court also cited Ministry of Justice Opinion No. Hence. Neither one nor the other is dispensable. be legally infirm. 1989. 86 and assigned to Branch 44 of the process. CA Petitioner Private respondent  That the publication for registration of Title in LRC Case  Petitioner points out that under Section 23 of PD  Contend that failure to comply with the requirement of need not be published in a newspaper of general 1529. Section 23 (1) of PD 1529. 1529. and of general circulation. while the second. it found that the applicants through their predecessors-in-interest had been in substituted as applicants by his heirs. requiring the Applicants to publish the  The subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in the challenged CA Resolution notice of Initial Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the dated November 19.  That publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer Gazette. the first. Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original As to the second.  However. 1529 requiring publication of the notice of initial hearing xxx The public shall be given notice of initial hearing of the application for land registration by means of (1) publication. applicant died. site and other conspicuous places. publication of the notice of initial hearing also in a newspaper of registration of his title over 648 square meters of land under Presidential general circulation is indispensably necessary as a requirement of procedural due Decree (PD) No. As to the first. exclusive and peaceful possession of the subject land since 1938. dismissed the petition for want  Private respondents appealed to Respondent Court of Appeals which set aside the of jurisdiction. 1986.  The land registration court on June 13. His remedy should be based on Rule 45 because he is appealing a final disposition of requiring publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper the Court of Appeals.LTD (2015) Cases FACTS:  On December 8. and is procedural. stating that the publication requirement under Section 23 [of PD 1529] has a ISSUE: WHETHER NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING IN AN two-fold purpose. personal notice by mailing. and xxx in xxx a newspaper of general minded to make any objection of the application for circulation to comply with the notice requirement registration. Occidental Mindoro. the court would be powerless to assume jurisdiction over a particular land registration case. and posting at the  According to petitioner. publication in the Official jurisdiction. the provision refers to publication in the Official ORIGINAL LAND REGISTRATION CASE MANDATORY. otherwise. publication in the Official Gazette is indispensably necessary because without it.

 Land registration is a proceeding in rem. 1968. having an area of Five Thousand (5. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. mailing and posting. including the state. resolved in favor of petitioners who were declared owners thereof. 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. (2) mailing and (3) posting.  NATURE: Petition for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order challenging the two [2] orders issued by respondent judge in Land Registration Case No. He subsequently erected a six-door apartment on said land. Reason: 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. all of which must be complied with. the all-encompassing in rem nature of land registration cases. Cayaba. 5 .250) square meters. 1980. the process must strictly be complied with. having an area of Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty (6. 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. HON. In sum. VALISNO v.LTD (2015) Cases 1. Veran On January 22. This being so. JUDGE ANDRES B. who had his house built thereon. Civil Case No. and. Branch 11-N-204 of the CFI Isabela. 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. No. On August 12. 1970. Otherwise. claiming to be the owner of the land in question by virtue of a deed of sale. VALISNO and HONORIO D. 1964. dismissing the opposition filed by petitioners on the ground of res judicata. FLORDELIZA L. FACTS:  On August 21. By publication. 1967 by the heirs of Dr. Deed of Sale: executed in his and one Bienvenido G. Section 23 of PD 1529 requires notice of the initial hearing by means of (1) publication. Being in rem. Branch II-895. Municipality of   Petitioners declared the parcels of land in their name for taxation purposes and exercised exclusive possession thereof in the concept of owners by installing as caretaker one Fermin Lozano. [c] a parcel of land situated in the Municipality of Cauayan.' Said notice shall also require all persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date and time to show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be granted. and `to all whom it may concern. who have rights to or interests in the property.R. the order dated July 2. 1980.: Cauayan. petitioners-spouses Flordeliza and Honorio Valisno purchased from the Blancos the ff: [a] a tract of land situated at Sitio Sisim Barangay Cabaruan. PLAN (CFI ISABELA) and VICENCIO CAYABA G. denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. and the order dated September 19. ousted Fermin Lozano from possession of the land. private respondent Vicencio Q. L-55152 August 19. if at all. Epifanio Q. Noriega's favor on June 30. -Xxx that the publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. J. 1986 FERNAN. Province of Isabela. 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. Province of Isabela. such that the notices published therein may not reach the interested parties on time. petitioners instituted before the then CFI Isabela a complaint against private respondent for recovery of possession of said parcels of land. said parties must be given notice and opportunity to oppose. Xxx publication in a newspaper of general circulation is likewise imperative since the law included such requirement in its detailed provision. such proceeding requires constructive seizure of the land as against all persons.000) square meters .

reached thru pure guess-work. 1.  For said principle to apply: [a] the former judgment must be final. in LRC Case No. R. Cabaya. 1985.      A petition for review on certiorari of said decision filed by petitioners before the SC was denied due course. on September 25. and possesses it with a just title and he need not show or prove why he is possessing the same. however. XXX such situation rarely. In an action to recover. the instant action should have been dismissed outright.R. Noriega. since the area and boundaries of the property are mere estimations. the petition for certiorari. is unreliable. basing his entitlement on deed of sale as well as the decision of the appellate court in CA-G. the Land Registration Act [Act 496] does not provide for a pleading similar or corresponding to a motion to dismiss. happens in land registration cases. IN THE CASE AT BAR: A.  Art. Sr.LTD (2015) Cases  - - - On appeal. Subsequently. in view of the provision of Article 434 of the New Civil Code which reads. if ever. allows the application of the rules contained therein in land registration proceedings in a suppletory character or whenever practicable and convenient. 1980. No. identity of parties. MR denied Hence.  It is undisputed that the Cayaba is the present occupant of the land. the appellate court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the complaint of petitioners. 6 . by private respondent to the then CA. [c] it must be a judgment on the merits and [d] there must be between the first and second actions identity of parties. There is. 434. 433 and 541 of the New Civil Code]. [b] it must have been' rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties. i. There is no doubt that the principle of res judicata operates in the case at bar.  The opposition partakes of the nature of an answer with a counterclaim. B. On July 8. 60142-R is a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court which had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. On the other hand. and not from it being unauthorize. II-N-204. HELD: YES. [Arts.e. thru counsel. ISSUE: WHETHER THE OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER IS BARRED BY RES JUDICATA. of subject matter and of cause of action. On April 26. 17009. 60142-R. the appellate court's decision in CA-G. Despite the opposition of petitioners to said motion to dismiss. subject matter and cause of action. and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim'. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.R. the appellees' evidence. The evidence of the appellant in the matter of Identifying the property in question because it is a vicinity plan showing the position of the land in relation not only to the properties adjoining the same but also with known boundaries and landmarks in the area. the property must be Identified. Valisno filed an opposition to the application. Finding that the land occupied by the Cayaba has not been successfully Identified with that described in the complaint. praying that he be included as co-applicant to the land sought to be registered. the irregularity that petitioners complain of stems basically from the infrequent use of a motion to dismiss in land registration cases. however. The decision in CA-G. however. this Court received a copy of the motion to amend application filed by Bienvenido G. No..   Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to file their briefs.  Verily. between the registration case under consideration and the previous civil action for recovery of property. particularly the description in Tax Declaration No. Br.. Cabaya filed before the CFI of Isabela an application for registration in his name of the title of the lands in question. 1979. the lower court issued the first of the assailed orders dismissing the petitioner's opposition on the ground of res judicata. 60142-R. moved for the dismissal of said opposition on the ground that the same is barred by a prior judgment. No.

In effect. The only difference is that in the former case.2. No. Bienvenido Noriega. the exclusion is directed against particular persons. such dismissal must be affirmed. possession is sought on the basis of ownership and the same is true in registration cases.  It does not matter that the first case was decided by a court of general jurisdiction. while in the latter proceedings. the exclusion is directed against the whole world. C. With respect to the subject matter. the same remains the law of the case between the parties. the plaintiff and the applicant seek to exclude other persons from ownership of the land in question. while the second case is being heard by one of a limited jurisdiction. Registration of title in one's name is based on ownership.R. Branch II-895 as well as CA-G. It is enough that the court which decided the first case on the merits had validly acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. That both courts should have equal jurisdiction is not a requisite of res judicata. The 2nd case is for registration of title. No. where their claim over the land in question was fully aired and ventilated. Said decision having attained finality. the land sought to be recovered by petitioners are the very same parcels of land being sought to be registered in Cayaba's and Noriega's names. the allegations and the prayer for relief therein raise the issue of ownership.. respondent court had denied them their day in court. it is in the nature of an accion reinvidicatoria.  The conflicting claims of petitioners and respondent Cayaba [in behalf of the co-ownership] with respect to the land under consideration had been put to rest in CA-G. The complaint in the 1st action is for recovery of possession. in the application for registration does not result in a difference in parties between the two cases. B. 60142-R. It is well to remind petitioners that they had their day in court in Civil Case No. 60142-R.  On petitioners’ complaint that by dismissing their opposition.  Finding no error to have been committed by respondent judge in dismissing petitioners' opposition. Nonetheless. the cause of action remains the same.R.LTD (2015) Cases  The inclusion of private respondent Cayaba's co-owner.  In both cases. The two cases have identity of causes of action because in accion reinvidicatoria. 7 . Sr. such as a registration court.