LTD (2015) Cases1 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:PetitionforreviewbycertiorariseeksthereversalofthedecisionoftheCA datedFebruary27,1973inCA-G.R.No.46581-R,whichupheldtheregistrationinthe names of Daniel Gole Cruz and Dolores Mendoza, purchasers of the landholdings subject matterofanapplicationforregistration,notwithstandingthattheywerenotpartiesin the original registration proceedings. FACTS: May15,1964,GenerosoMendozafiledwiththeCFIofBulacananapplicationforthe registrationoftwoparcelsofland,witharesidentialhousethereon,situatedinthe Poblacion of Sta. Maria Bulacan.A notice was issued on December 3, 1964The date of initial hearing was set on June 18, 1965. Saidnoticewasdulypublished,postedandservedbutnobodyappearednorfiledan answer or opposition within the period allowed for that purpose.Consequently,theregistrationcourtenteredonJuly6,1965,anorderofgeneral default and allowed the applicant to present his evidence ex-parte.Evidence presented proved: 1.ThatGenerosoandhiswife,DiegadeLeon,weretheownersoftheparcelsof landsubjectoftheapplicationbutthesameweresoldbythem,duringthe pendencyofthecase,tothespousesDanielGoleCruzandDoloresMendoza, 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 registrationofthe2parcelsoflandinthenamesofthevendees,DanielGoleCruzand DoloresMendoza, subjecttotheusufructuary rightsofthevendors,GenerosoMendoza and Diega de Leon.On the same day, a copy of said decision was received by Generoso Mendoza. OnNovember5,1965.GenerosoMendozafiledamotionfortheissuanceofthe decree.OnMay16,1967,DecreeNo.114454wasissuedconfirmingthetitletothelandof vendeesDanielGoleCruzandDoloresMendoza,andorderingtheregistrationofthe 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. OnApril16,1968,GenerosoMendozafiledanurgentpetitionforreconsideration prayingthatthedecision(orderforregistrationinthenamesofprivaterespondents) andthedecreeissuedonMay16,1967besetasideandthatOriginalCertificateof TitleNo.03787becancelled,onthegroundthatthevendees/theregisteredowners had failed to pay the purchase price of the lands.Theregistrationcourtconsideredsaidurgentpetitionforreconsiderationasa petitionfor review ofthe 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 orderedthe cancellation ofO.C.T. No. 03787and directed the registration of the lands in the names of spouses, Generoso Mendoza and Diega de Leon, subjecttotherightsofvendees,DanielGoleCruzandDoloresMendoza,statedinthe deed of sale.OnSeptember17,1968,spousesCruzandMendozamovedtoreconsidertheorder= 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.ThespousesCruzandMendozathenfiledwiththeCAaspecialcivilactionfor certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, which was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 43250-R.TheCArendereddecision,onFebruary27,1973,settingasidetheorderoftheland 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 LTD (2015) Cases2 Petitioner 1. Insisted that he could not be deemed to have caused the registration of the land in the names ofprivaterespondentsashenevertestifiedin courthavingsoldthesametosaidPrivate respondentsHeclaimedthathenevertestifiedincourtas havingsoldthepropertytothehereinprivate respondents. SC The records of the case belie petitioner's claim that he did not testify relative to the deed of sale. ThetranscriptofthestenographicnotesofthehearingontheapplicationforregistrationheldonJuly6,1965alltooclearly showthatpetitionerandhiswifetestifiedbeforethedeputedcommissioner,Mr.RicardoCruz,thattheysoldtheproperty sought to be registered to the private respondents. Q: was there any transaction that took place? A. Yes sir, we have sold these two parcels of land to Daniel Gole Cruz and his wife Dolores Mendoza. Q: if you know the carbon copy of the deed of sale? A. Yes sir that is the carbon copy of the deed of sale I have just mentioned. Q. Do you know who are now in possession of these properties. A. We, I, my husband and Daniel Gole Cruz and and his wife, Dolores Mendoza are in actual possession of the same. Q. Why are Daniel Gole Cruz and Dolores Mendoza co-possessing with you these two parcels of land? A.BecauseonOctober15,1964,wesoldthispropertytothemwithoneoftheconditionsthatuntilmyhusbandandmyselfor anyone of us die, we will live with them. Furthermore, applicant-petitioner even presented the private respondent Daniel Gole Cruz to confirm the aforesaid sale of the subject property. GenerosoMendozawastheoriginalapplicantinthiscase.Atthehearing,hehimselfproducedevidencethatonOctober 15,1964heandhiswifesoldtheLandinfavorofthespousesDanielGoleCruzandDoloresMendozafortheamountof P6,000.00 payable in installments. Petitioner himself caused the registration of the land in the names of private respondents. 2.Thattheregistrationcourtcouldnotlegally ordertheregistrationofthelandinthenames ofthevendees-respondents,whowereneither theapplicantsnortheoppositorsinthe registration case below PetitioneroverlooksSection29oftheLandRegistrationActwhichexpresslyauthorizestheregistrationofthelandsubject matterofaregistrationproceedinginthenameofthebuyerorofthepersontowhomthelandhasbeenconveyedbyan 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. Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" be a party to the case. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings.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; and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. And the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements have been complied with. The Deed of Sale was duly presented to the registration court for consideration.Firstly, it was the petitioner himself, who presented the deed of sale to the court and testified before the same that he did sell the land to the private respondents. 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.Secondly, as if to fully convince the court of the fact of sale, petitioner presented his wife, Diega de Leon, and private respondent, Daniel Gole Cruz, to confirm the said sale of the land and the stipulated usufructuary rights.Finally,thepetitionerevenfiledthemotionfortheissuanceofthedecreeofconfirmationoftitleafterhaving LTD (2015) Cases3 receivedthedecisionofthecourtorderingtheregistrationofthetitletothelandinthenamesofvendees-respondents, subject to the stipulated usufructuary rights thereby signifying his full assent to the same. It is true that no written motion was filed seeking the consideration of the deed of sale in relation with the application for registration.Butthelawdoesnotrequirethatthemotionaccompanyingthepresentationoftheinstrumentbein writing. And the above- 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- respondents, subject only to the stipulated usufructuary rights of the petitioner and his wife. There was, therefore, sufficient compliance with the first requirement of the law. Anent the second requirement of prior notice to the parties. A order of general default had been issued prior to the presentation of the deed of sale by the applicant-petitioner, sincenobodyfiledanoppositiontotheapplicationforregistration.Thus,theonlypersonwhoshouldhavebeen entitled to a notice from the court was the applicant-petitioner himself, as the only party with a legal standing in the proceedings. In view thereof, no legal objection to the court's jurisdiction to order the registration of the lands in the namesofvendees-respondentsmaybeinterposedonthegroundofnon-compliancewiththerequirementofprior notice to the parties. Sincetherewassufficientcompliancewiththeaforestatedrequirementsofthelaw,respondentCourtofAppealsdid not, therefore, err in holding that the lower court had jurisdiction to order the registration of the lands in the names of vendees-respondents. 3.ThatrespondentCourtofAppealserredin holdingthathewasnotthevictimoffraud perpetratedbythevendees,private respondents, herein, who allegedly failed to pay the purchase price of the landholdings. Without merit. Section 38 of the Land Registration Act provides as follows SEC. 38. If the court after hearing finds that the applicant or adverse claimant has title as stated in hisapplication or adverse claim andproperforregistration,adecreeofconfirmationandregistrationshallbeentered....Suchdecreeshallnotbeopenedby reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments or decree: subject, however, 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 thecompetent 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. ... (Emphasis supplied.) onlygrounduponwhichadecreeofregistrationmaybesetasideisfraudinobtainingthedecreeofconfirmationand registration Intheinstantcase,applicant-petitionercannotcomplainoffraudinobtainingthedecreeofregistrationforasheretofore stated,itwassolelyuponhistestimonyandproofthatthelotswereorderedregisteredinthenamesofthevendees-respondents and it was also upon his motion that the decree of registration was issued by the lower court.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. But as correctly held by respondent Court of Appeals: Breachofcontractisnotagroundforapetitionforareview.Andtheregistrationcourthasnojurisdictiontodecidethe contentiousissueofwhetherornotthedeedofsale,shouldberescindedfortheallegedfailureofthevendeestopaythe purchase price. The issue on the breach of contract has to be letigated in the ordinary court.THEDIRECTOROFLANDSvs.CAandTEODOROABISTADO,substitutedby MARGARITA, MARISSA, MARIBEL, ARNOLD and MARY ANN (ABISTADO) G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997 PANGANIBAN, J.: NATURE: Petition to set aside the CAs Decision promulgated on July 3, 1991 and the subsequent Resolution promulgated on November 19, 1991 by Respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 23719. LTD (2015) Cases4 FACTS:OnDecember8,1986,TeodoroAbistadofiledapetitionfororiginal registrationofhistitleover648squaremetersoflandunderPresidential Decree(PD)No.1529.(LRC)No.86andassignedtoBranch44ofthe Regional Trial Court of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. However,duringthependencyofhispetition,applicantdied.Hence, substituted as applicants by his heirs. The land registration court on June 13, 1989, dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction.-Courtnotedthatapplicantsfailedtocomplywiththeprovisionsof Section23(1)ofPD1529,requiringtheApplicantstopublishthe notice of Initial Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.-It was only published in the Official Gazette -TheCourthasnotlegallyacquiredjurisdictionovertheinstant applicationforwantofcompliancewiththemandatoryprovision requiring publication of the notice ofinitial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. ThetrialcourtalsocitedMinistryofJusticeOpinionNo.48,Seriesof1982, stating that the publication requirement under Section 23 [of PD 1529] has a two-fold purpose; the first, the provision refers to publication in the Official Gazette,andisjurisdictional;whilethesecond,referstopublicationnot onlyintheOfficialGazettebutalsoinanewspaperofgeneralcirculation, and is procedural.Neither one nor the other is dispensable.-Astothefirst,publicationintheOfficialGazetteisindispensably necessarybecausewithoutit,thecourtwouldbepowerlessto assume jurisdiction over a particular land registration case. -As to the second, publication of the notice of initial hearing also in a newspaper of generalcirculationisindispensablynecessaryasarequirementofproceduraldue process; otherwise, any decision that the court may promulgate in the case would be legally infirm. However,itfoundthattheapplicantsthroughtheirpredecessors-in-interesthadbeenin open, continuous, exclusive and peaceful possession of the subject land since 1938. PrivaterespondentsappealedtoRespondentCourtofAppealswhichsetasidethe decisionofthetrialcourtandorderedtheregistrationofthetitleinthenameof 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 the case to SC. ThisCourtnotesthatthepetitionerscounselanchoredhispetitiononRule65.Thisisan error. His remedy should be based on Rule 45 because he is appealing afinal 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] ISSUE:WHETHERNEWSPAPERPUBLICATIONOFTHENOTICEOFINITIALHEARINGINAN ORIGINAL LAND REGISTRATION CASE MANDATORY. HELD: YES. CA That the publication for registration of Title in LRC Case neednotbepublishedinanewspaperofgeneral circulation. Thatotherrequirementof:publicationintheOfficial Gazette, personal notice by mailing, and posting at the site and other conspicuous places, were complied with andthesearesufficienttonotifyanypartywhois mindedtomakeanyobjectionoftheapplicationfor registration. Petitioner PetitionerpointsoutthatunderSection23ofPD 1529, the notice of initial hearing shall be published bothintheOfficialGazetteandinanewspaperof general circulation. Accordingtopetitioner,publicationintheOfficial Gazette is necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the trialcourt,andxxxinxxxanewspaperofgeneral circulationtocomplywiththenoticerequirement of due process. Private respondent Contendthatfailuretocomplywiththerequirementof publicationinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationisamere procedural defect. That publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.

SC Newspaper Publication Mandatory Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 requiring publication of the notice of initial hearingxxx 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. LTD (2015) Cases5 1. By publication. -- Xxx 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 appear in court at a certain date and time to show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be granted. 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. Xxxpublication in a newspaper of general circulation is likewise imperative since the law included such requirement in its detailed provision. 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. 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. Reason:dueprocessandtherealitythattheOfficialGazetteisnotaswidelyreadandcirculatedasnewspapersandisoftentimesdelayedinitscirculation,suchthatthenotices published therein may not reach the interested parties on time, if at all. 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. FLORDELIZAL.VALISNOandHONORIOD.VALISNOv.HON.JUDGEANDRESB. PLAN (CFI ISABELA) and VICENCIO CAYABA G.R. No. L-55152 August 19, 1986 FERNAN, J.: NATURE:Petitionforcertiorariwithprayerforatemporaryrestrainingorder challengingthetwo[2]ordersissuedbyrespondentjudgeinLandRegistration CaseNo.Branch11-N-204oftheCFIIsabela,theorderdatedJuly2,1980, dismissingtheoppositionfiledbypetitionersonthegroundofresjudicata,and theorderdatedSeptember19,1980,denyingpetitioners'motionfor reconsideration. FACTS: OnAugust21,1964,petitioners-spousesFlordelizaandHonorioValisno purchased from the Blancos the ff: [a] a tract of land situated at Sitio Sisim Barangay Cabaruan, Municipality ofCauayan, Province of Isabela, having an area of Five Thousand (5,000) square meters ; and, [c] a parcel of land situated in the Municipality of Cauayan, Province of Isabela, having an area of Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty (6,250) square meters. Petitionersdeclaredtheparcelsoflandintheirnamefortaxationpurposesandexercised exclusive possession thereof in the concept of owners by installing as caretaker one Fermin Lozano, who had his house built thereon. On August 12, 1968, private respondent Vicencio Q. Cayaba, claiming to be the owner of the landinquestionbyvirtueofadeedofsale,oustedFerminLozanofrompossessionofthe land. He subsequently erected a six-door apartment on said land. Deed of Sale: executed in his and one Bienvenido G. Noriega's favor on June 30, 1967 by the heirs of Dr. Epifanio Q. Veran On January 22, 1970, petitioners instituted before the then CFI Isabela a complaint against private respondent for recovery of possession of said parcels of land. Civil Case No. Branch II-895, resolved in favor of petitioners who were declared owners thereof. LTD (2015) Cases6 Onappeal,however,byprivaterespondenttothethenCA,theappellate court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the complaint of petitioners. -FindingthatthelandoccupiedbytheCayabahasnotbeensuccessfully Identifiedwiththatdescribedinthecomplaint,theinstantactionshould havebeendismissedoutright,inviewoftheprovisionofArticle434ofthe New Civil Code which reads. Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be Identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim'. -ItisundisputedthattheCayabaisthepresentoccupantoftheland,and possessesitwithajusttitleandheneednotshoworprovewhyheis possessing the same. [Arts. 433 and 541 of the New Civil Code]. -TheevidenceoftheappellantinthematterofIdentifyingthepropertyin questionbecauseitisavicinityplanshowingthepositionofthelandin relationnotonlytothepropertiesadjoiningthesamebutalsowithknown boundariesandlandmarksinthearea.Ontheotherhand,theappellees' evidence,particularlythedescriptioninTaxDeclarationNo.17009,is unreliable,sincetheareaandboundariesofthepropertyaremere estimations, reached thru pure guess-work. ApetitionforreviewoncertiorariofsaiddecisionfiledbypetitionersbeforetheSCwas denied due course. Subsequently, on September 25, 1979, Cabaya filed beforethe CFI of Isabela an application forregistrationinhisnameofthetitleofthelandsinquestion,basinghisentitlementondeed of sale as well as the decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 60142-R. On April 26, 1980, Valisno filed an opposition to the application. Cabaya, however, moved for the dismissal of said opposition on the ground that the same is barred by a prior judgment, i.e., the appellate court's decision in CA-G.R. No. 60142-R. Despitetheoppositionofpetitionerstosaidmotiontodismiss,thelowercourtissuedthe firstoftheassailedordersdismissingthepetitioner'soppositiononthegroundofres judicata. MR denied Hence, the petition for certiorari. ISSUE: WHETHER THE OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER IS BARRED BY RES JUDICATA. HELD: YES. Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to file their briefs.On July 8, 1985, this Court received a copy of the motion to amend application filed by Bienvenido G. Noriega, Sr., thru counsel, in LRC Case No. Br. II-N-204, praying that he be included as co-applicant to the land sought to be registered. Verily, the Land Registration Act [Act 496] does not provide for a pleading similar or corresponding to a motion to dismiss. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, however, allows the application of the rules contained therein in land registration proceedings in a suppletory character or whenever practicable and convenient. Theoppositionpartakesofthenatureofananswerwithacounterclaim.XXXsuchsituationrarely,ifever,happensinlandregistrationcases,theirregularitythatpetitioners complain of stems basically from the infrequent use of a motion to dismiss in land registration cases, and not from it being unauthorize. There is no doubt that the principle of res judicata operates in the case at bar. For said principle to apply: [a]the former judgment must befinal, [b] itmust have been' rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, [c] it must be a judgment on the merits and [d] there must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action. IN THE CASE AT BAR:A. The decision in CA-G. R. No. 60142-R is a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court which had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. B. 1. There is, between the registration case under consideration and the previous civil action for recovery of property, identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action.LTD (2015) Cases7 The inclusion of private respondent Cayaba's co-owner, Bienvenido Noriega, Sr., in the application for registration does not result in a difference in parties between the two cases.B.2. With respect to the subject matter, 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. C.Thecomplaintinthe1stactionisforrecoveryofpossession,theallegationsandtheprayerforreliefthereinraisetheissueofownership.Ineffect,itisinthenatureofan accion reinvidicatoria. The 2nd case is for registration of title. The two cases have identity of causes of action because in accion reinvidicatoria, possession is sought on the basis of ownership and the same is true in registration cases. Registration of title in one's name is based on ownership.In both cases, the plaintiff and the applicant seek to exclude other persons from ownership of the land in question. The only difference is that in the former case, the exclusion is directed against particular persons, while in the latter proceedings, the exclusion is directed against the whole world. Nonetheless, the cause of action remains the same.It does not matter that the first case was decided by a court of general jurisdiction, while the second case is being heard by one of a limited jurisdiction, such as a registration court. 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. On petitioners complaint that by dismissing their opposition, respondent court had denied them their day in court. It is well to remind petitioners that they had their day in court in Civil Case No. Branch II-895 as well as CA-G.R. No. 60142-R, where their claim over the land in question was fully aired and ventilated. TheconflictingclaimsofpetitionersandrespondentCayaba[inbehalfoftheco-ownership]withrespecttothelandunderconsiderationhadbeenputtorestinCA-G.R.No. 60142-R. Said decision having attained finality, the same remains the law of the case between the parties. Finding no error to have been committed by respondent judge in dismissing petitioners' opposition, such dismissal must be affirmed.