G.R. No. 78903 February 28, 1990 SPS. SEGUNDO DALION AND EPIFANIA SABESAE!DALION, petitioners, vs. "#E #ONORABLE $OUR" OF APPEALS AND RUPER"O SABESAE, R., respondents. Francisco A. Puray, Sr. for petitioners. Gabriel N. Duazo for private respondent. %EDIALDEA,J.: This is a petition to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals rendered on May 26, 1987, upholding the validity of the sale of a parcel of land y petitioner !egundo "alion #hereafter, $"alion$% in favor of private respondent &uperto !aesa'e, (r. #hereafter , $!aesa'e$%, descried thus) A parcel o f land located at *anya+an, !o god, !outhern eyte, declared in t he na-e of !egundo "alion, under Ta "eclaration /o. 11108, +ith an area of 8907 hectares, assessed at * 18., and ounded on the /orth, y !ergio "estria and Titon 3eloso, 4ast, y 5eliciano "estria, y arara onesa #sic%and est, y Catalino 4spina. #pp. 6:7, &ollo% The decision affir-s in totothe ruling of the trial court 1 issued on (anuary 17, 1980, the dispositive portion of +hich provides as follo+s) ;4&45<&4, =/ 3=4<5 T;4 5<&4><=/>, the Court herey renders 'udg-ent. #a% <rdering the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff the parcel of land su'ect of this case, declared in the na-e of !egundo "alion previously under Ta"eclaration /o. 11 108 and lately under Ta "eclaration /o. 2297 #1970% and to eecute the corresponding for-al deed of conveyance in a pulic docu-ent in favor of the plaintiff of the said property su'ect of this case, other+ise, should defendants for any reason fail to do so, the deed shall e eecuted in their ehalf y the *rovincial !heriff or his "eputy#% <rdering the defendants to pay plaintiff the a-ount of *2,.as attorney?s fees and * @.as litigation epenses, and to pay the costsand #c% "is-issing the counter:clai-. #p. 8, &ollo% The facts of the case are as follo+s)
<n May 28, 197, !aesa'e sued to recover o+nership of a parcel of land, ased on a private
docu-ent of asolute sale, dated (uly 1, 196@ #4hiit $A$%, allegedly eecuted y "alion, +ho,
ho+ever denied the fact of sale, contending that the docu-ent sued upon is fictitious, his signature
thereon, a forgery, and that su'ect land is con'ugal property, +hich he and his +ife acuired in 196
fro- !aturnina !aesa'e as evidenced y the $4scritura de 3enta Asoluta$ #4hiit $$%. The
spouses denied clai-s of !aesa'e that after eecuting a deed of sale over the parcel of land, theyhad pleaded +ith !aesa'e, their relative, to e allo+ed to ad-inister the land ecause "alion did
not have any -eans of livelihood. They ad-itted, ho+ever, ad-inistering since 19@8, five #@% parcels
of land in !ogod, !outhern eyte, +hich elonged to eonardo !aesa'e, grandfather of !aesa'e,
+ho died in 19@6. They never received their agreed 1B and 1@B co--ission on the sales of copra
and aaca, respectively. !aesa'e?s suit, they countered, +as intended -erely to harass, pree-pt
and forestall "alion?s threat to sue for these unpaid co--issions.
5ro- the adverse decision of the trial court, "alion appealed, assigning errors so-e of +hich,
ho+ever, +ere disregarded y the appellate court, not having een raised in the court elo+. hile
the Court of Appeals duly recognies <ur authority to revie+ -atters even if not assigned as errors
in the appeal, e are not inclined to do so since a revie+ of the case at ar reveals that the lo+ercourt has 'udicially decided the case on its -erits.
As to the controversy regarding the identity of the land, e have no reason to dispute the Court of
Appeals? findings as follo+s)
To e sure, the parcel of land descried in 4hiit $A$ is the sa-e property deeded
out in 4hiit $$. The oundaries delineating it fro- ad'acent lots are identical. oth
docu-ents detail out the follo+ing oundaries, to +it)
<n the /orth:property of !ergio "estria and Titon 3eloso
<n the 4ast:property of 5eliciano "estria
<n the !outh:property of arara onia and
<n the est:Catalino 4spina.
#pp. 01:02, &ollo%
The issues in this case -ay thus e li-ited to) a% the validity of the contract of sale of a parcel of
land and % the necessity of a pulic docu-ent for transfer of o+nership thereto.
The appellate court upheld the validity of the sale on the asis of !ecs. 21 and 2 of &ule 12 of the
&evised &ules of Court.
!4C. 21. Private writing, its execution and autenticity, ow proved.:efore any
private +riting -ay e received in evidence, its due eecution and authenticity -ust
#% y evidence of the genuineness of the hand+riting of the -aer or
#c% y a suscriing +itness
!4C. 2. !andwriting, ow proved. " The hand+riting of a person -ay e proved
y any +itness +ho elieves it to e the hand+riting of such person, and has seen
the person +rite, or has seen +riting purporting to e his upon +hich the +itness has
acted or een charged, and has thus acuired no+ledge of the hand+riting of such
person. 4vidence respecting the hand+riting -ay also e given y a co-parison,
-ade y the +itness or the court, +ith +ritings ad-itted or treated as genuine y the
party against +ho- the evidence is offered, or proved to e genuine to the
satisfaction of the 'udge. #&ule 12, &evised &ules of Court%
And on the asis of the findings of fact of the trial court as follo+s)
;ere, people +ho +itnessed the eecution of su'ect deed positively testified on the
authenticity thereof. They categorically stated that it had een eecuted and signed
y the signatories thereto. =n fact, one of such +itnesses, >erardo M. <gsoc,
declared on the +itness stand that he +as the one +ho prepared said deed of sale
and had copied parts thereof fro- the $4scritura "e 3enta Asoluta$ #4hiit % y
+hich one !aturnina !aesa'e sold the sa-e parcel of land to appellant !egundo
"alion. <gsoc copied the ounderies thereof and the na-e of appellant !egundo
"alion?s +ife, erroneously +ritten as $4s-enia$ in 4hiit $A$ and $4s-enia$ in
4hiit $$. #p. 01, &ollo%
Against defendant?s -ere denial that he signed the docu-ent, the positive
testi-onies of the instru-ental itnesses <gsoc and 4spina, aside fro- the
testi-ony of the plaintiff, -ust prevail. "efendant has affir-atively alleged forgery,
ut he never presented any +itness or evidence to prove his clai- of forgery. 4ach
party -ust prove his o+n affir-ative allegations #!ection 1, &ule 11, &ules of
Court%. 5urther-ore, it is presu-ed that a person is innocent of a cri-e or +rong
#!ection @ #a%, #de$%, and defense should have co-e for+ard +ith clear and
convincing evidence to sho+ that plaintiff co--itted forgery or caused said forgery toe co--itted, to overco-e the presu-ption of innocence. Mere denial of having
signed, does not suffice to sho+ forgery.
=n addition, a co-parison of the uestioned signatories or speci-ens #4hs. A:2 and
A:% +ith the ad-itted signatures or speci-ens #4hs. D and E or :C% convinces the
court that 4hs. A:2 or F and A: +ere +ritten y defendant !egundo "alion +ho
ad-itted that 4hs. D and E or :C are his signatures. The uestioned signatures
and the speci-ens are very si-ilar to each other and appear to e +ritten y one
person.
5urther co-parison of the uestioned signatures and the speci-ens +ith the
signatures !egundo ". "alion appeared at the ac of the su--ons #p. 9, &ecord%
on the return card #p. 2@, #bid.% ac of the Court <rders dated "ece-er 17, 197and (uly , 1970 and for <ctoer 7, 1970 #p. @0 G p. @6, respectively, #bid.%, and on
the open court notice of April 1, 198 #p. 2@, #bid.% readily reveal that the
uestioned signatures are the signatures of defendant !egundo "alion.
=t -ay e noted that t+o signatures of !egundo ". "alion appear on the face of the
uestioned docu-ent #4h. A%, one at the right corner otto- of the docu-ent #4h.
A:2% and the other at the left hand -argin thereof #4h. A:%. The second signature is
already a surplusage. A forger +ould not atte-pt to forge another signature, an
unnecessary one, for fear he -ay co--it a revealing error or an erroneous stroe.
#"ecision, p. 1% #pp. 02:0, &ollo%
e see no reason for deviating fro- the appellate court?s ruling #p. 00, &ollo% as +e reiterate that
Appellate courts have consistently suscried to the principle that conclusions and
findings of fact y the trial courts are entitled to great +eight on appeal and should
not e distured unless for strong and cogent reasons, since it is undeniale that the
trial court is in a -ore advantageous position to ea-ine real evidence, as +ell as to
oserve the de-eanor of the +itnesses +hile testifying in the case #Chase v.
uenca-ino, !r., >.&. /o. :29@, May 1, 198@, 16 !C&A 6@ *ring v. Court of
Appeals, >.&. /o. :016@, August 19, 198@, 18 !C&A 18@%
Assu-ing authenticity of his signature and the genuineness of the docu-ent, "alion nonethelessstill i-pugns the validity of the sale on the ground that the sa-e is e-odied in a private docu-ent,
and did not thus convey title or right to the lot in uestion since $acts and contracts +hich have for
their o'ect the creation, trans-ission, -odification or etinction of real rights over i--ovale
property -ust appear in a pulic instru-ent$ #Art. 1@8, par 1, /CC%.
This argu-ent is -isplaced. The provision of Art. 1@8 on the necessity of a pulic docu-ent is only
for convenience, not for validity or enforceaility. =t is not a reuire-ent for the validity of a contract
of sale of a parcel of land that this e e-odied in a pulic instru-ent.
A contract of sale is a consensual contract, +hich -eans that the sale is perfected y -ere consent.
/o particular for- is reuired for its validity. Hpon perfection of the contract, the parties -ayreciprocally de-and perfor-ance #Art. 107@, /CC%, i.e., the vendee -ay co-pel transfer of
o+nership of the o'ect of the sale, and the vendor -ay reuire the vendee to pay the thing sold
#Art. 10@8, /CC%.
The trial court thus rightly and legally ordered "alion to deliver to !aesa'e the parcel of land and to
eecute corresponding for-al deed of conveyance in a pulic docu-ent. Hnder Art. 1098, /CC,
+hen the sale is -ade through a pulic instru-ent, the eecution thereof is euivalent to the delivery
of the thing. "elivery -ay either e actual #real% or constructive. Thus delivery of a parcel of land
-ay e done y placing the vendee in control and possession of the land #real% or y e-odying the
sale in a pulic instru-ent #constructive%.
As regards petitioners? contention that the proper action should have een one for specific
perfor-ance, e elieve that the suit for recovery of o+nership is proper. As earlier stated, Art. 107@of the Civil Code gives the parties to a perfected contract of sale the right to reciprocally de-and
perfor-ance, and to oserve a particular for-, if +arranted, #Art. 1@7%. The trial court, aptly
oserved that !aesa'e?s co-plaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action to co-pel "alion to
eecute a for-al deed of sale, and the suit for recovery of o+nership, +hich is pre-ised on the
inding effect and validity inter partes of the contract of sale, -erely sees consu$$ation of said
contract.
... . A sale of a real property -ay e in a private instru-ent ut that contract is valid
and inding et+een the parties upon its perfection. And a party -ay co-pel the
other party to eecute a pulic instru-ent e-odying their contract affecting real
rights once the contract appearing in a private instru-ent hag een perfected #!ee Art. 1@7%.
... . #p. 12, "ecision, p. 272, &ecords%
ACC<&"=/>E, the petition is "4/=4" and the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the
ruling of the trial court is herey A55=&M4". /o costs.
!< <&"4&4".
Narvasa, %ruz, Gancayco and Grino&A'uino, ((., concur.
LEON$IO LEE "E S#ENG, petitioner, vs. $OUR" OF APPEALS, #ON.AN"ONIO . FINE/A, a' LEE "E S#ENG, respondents.
D E $ I S I O N
%AR"INE/, J .
After his -others death, petitioner I1J filed a co-plaint against his father, hereinprivate respondent, to partition the con'ugal properties of his parents. I2J =n his ans+er +ith counterclai-, private respondent alleged that four #0% parcels of land registeredsolely in petitioners na-e under Transfer Certificate of Title #TCT% 8278 are con'ugalproperties. *rivate respondent contends that the lots are o+ned y the con'ugal regi-eut +as registered in petitioners na-e only as a trustee considering that at that ti-e,the latter +as then the only 5ilipino citien in the fa-ily. Accordingly, private respondentprayed for the dis-issal of the partition case and for the reconveyance of the lots to itsrightful o+ner the con'ugal regi-e.
Meanti-e, to protect the interest of the con'ugal regi-e during the pendency of thecase, private respondent caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT 8278.*etitioner -oved for the cancellation of said annotation +hich +as denied y the trial
court ruling that #a% the notice +as not for the purpose of -olesting or harassingpetitioner and #% also to eep the property +ithin the po+er of the court pendinglitigation. IJ *etitioner assailed the denial of his -otion to cancel the notice of lis pendensvia petition for certiorari and prohiition to the Court of Appeals #CA%, ut to no avail. I0J
&esorting to this Court, petitioner pri-arily contends that in the resolution of anincidental -otion for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens #a% it +as i-proper tothresh out the issue of o+nership of the disputed lots since o+nership cannot e passedupon in a partition case, other+ise, #% it +ould a-ount to a collateral attac of his titleotained -ore than 28 years ago. ;e argues that his sole o+nership as sho+n in theTCT +ould e i-properly assailed in a partition case and should e done through aseparate suit. <n the contrary, private respondent posits that evidence of o+nership isad-issile in a partition case as this is not a proate or land registration proceedings+hen the courts 'urisdiction is li-ited.
Though the postulates respectively proffered y oth parties are not at point, lucilyfor private respondent, petitioners clai- is not legally tenale. There is no dispute that aTorrens certificate of title cannot e collaterally attacedI@J ut that rule is not -aterial tothis case. The annotation of a notice of lis pendens does not in any case a-ount nor can it e considered as euivalent to a collateral attac of the certificate of title for a
parcel of land. The concept of no collateral attac of title is ased on !ection 08 of *.".1@29 +hich states that)
%ertificate not Sub)ect to %ollateral attac* .: A certificate of title shall not esu'ect to collateral attac. =t cannot e altered, -odified, or cancelled ecept
in a direct proceeding in accordance +ith la+.I6J #4-phasis !upplied%.
hat cannot e collaterally attaced is the certificate of title and not the title. Thecertificate referred to is that docu-ent issued y the &egister of "eeds no+n as theTransfer Certificate of Title #TCT%. y title, the la+ refers to o+nership +hich isrepresented y that docu-ent. *etitioner apparently confuses certificate +ith title.*lacing a parcel of land under the -antle of the Torrens syste- does not -ean thato+nership thereof can no longer e disputed. <+nership is different fro- a certificate of title. The TCT is only the est proof of o+nership of a piece of land. I7J esides, thecertificate cannot al+ays e considered as conclusive evidence of o+nership. I8J Mereissuance of the certificate of title in the na-e of any person does not foreclose the
possiility that the real property -ay e under co:o+nership +ith persons not na-ed inthe certificate or that the registrant -ay only e a trustee or that other parties -ay haveacuired interest suseuent to the issuance of the certificate of title. To repeat,registration is not the euivalent of title, ut is only the est evidence thereof. Title as aconcept of o+nership should not e confused +ith the certificate of title as evidence of such o+nership although oth are interchangealy used. =n this case, contrary topetitioners fears, his certificate of title is not eing assailed y private respondent.I9J hat the latter disputes is the for-ers clai- of sole o+nership. Thus, althoughpetitioners certificate of title -ay have eco-e incontrovertile one year after issuance,I1J yet contrary to his argu-ent, it does not ar private respondent fro- uestioning hiso+nership.I11J
=t should e noted that +hat is eing challenged in this case is the denial of the-otion to cancel the notice of lis pendens. ut +hether as a -atter of procedure I12J or sustance,I1J a notice of lis pendens -ay e cancelled only on t+o grounds, +hich are)#1% if the annotation +as for the purpose of -olesting the title of the adverse party, or #2%+hen the annotation is not necessary to protect the title of the party +ho caused it to erecorded. /either ground for cancellation of the notice +as convincingly sho+n toconcur in this case. =t +ould not even e fair to 'ustify the cancellation of the notice onthe legally untenale grounds that such annotation a-ounts to a collateral attac of petitioners certificate of title or that o+nership cannot e ad'udicated in a partition case.=t -ust e e-phasied that the annotation of a notice of lis pendens is only for thepurpose of announcing to the +hole +orld that a particular real property is in litigation,serving as a +arning that one +ho acuires an interest over said property does so at hiso+n ris, or that he ga-les on the result of the litigation over said property. I10J ;ere, theparties are still loced in a legal attle to settle their respective clai-s of o+nership. Thelo+er court allo+ed the annotation pending litigation only for the purpose of givinginfor-ation to the pulic that that parcel of land is involved in a suit and that those +hodeal +ith the property is fore+arned of such fact.
<n the contention that o+nership cannot e passed upon in partition case, suffice itto say that until and unless o+nership is definitely resolved, it +ould e pre-ature toeffect partition of the property.I1@J 5or purposes of annotating a notice of lis pendens,there is nothing in the rules +hich reuires the party seeing annotation to prove thatthe land elongs to hi-.I16Jesides, an action for partition is one case +here the
annotation of a notice of lis pendens is proper.I17J
5urther, contrary to petitioners argu-ent, one of the issues agreed upon y theparties at pre:trial is to deter-ine +hat are the properties acuired y the spousesduring their -arriage.I18J =n addition, private respondent in his ans+er +ith counterclai-prayed for the reconveyance of the disputed lots. Accordingly, the issue of o+nershiphas een put in issue and each clai-ant -ust present their respective evidence tosustantiate their respective allegations.I19J Considering that this is a partition case, thecourt is reuired to inuire into the nature and etent of title of the supposed clai-ant.I2J The title referred to y the rule is the purported o+nership of the clai-ants and notthe certificate of title -entioned in !ection 08 of *.". 1@29, although the latter -ay econsidered in the deter-ination of the for-er.
#EREFORE, y virtue of the foregoing, the petition is "4/=4" and the assaileddecision of the Court of Appeals is A55=&M4".
SO ORDERED.
+egalado, %air$an-, elo, Puno, and endoza, ((., concur .
I1J *etitioner is one of the legiti-ate children of private respondent. The latter has illegiti-ate children +ithanother +o-an.I2J The listed properties are lu-er usiness, rents, four uildings and a +arehouse. #Co-plaint, A//4D
" of *etition, pp. 2: +ollo, p. 07:08%.IJ <rder of &TC dated /ove-er 20, 1992 +ollo, p. 72.I0J Court of Appeals "ecision pro-ulgated 5eruary 8, 1990 +ollo, pp. @:01.I@J ;alili v. /&C, 2@7 !C&A 170.I6J *roperty &egistration "ecree.I7J ;alili v. /&C, 2@7 !C&A 170 #1996%.I8J ;eirs of >onaga v. CA, 261 !C&A 27 &epulic v. CA, 2@8 !C&A 712 =n e'ect-ent cases, acertificate of title is conclusive evidence of o+nership and it does not -atter if the title is uestionale#"ion v. CA, 260 !C&A 91%.I9J *rivate &espondents Me-orandu-, p. 6 +ollo, p. 196.I1J !ection 2, *.". [email protected] *etition, p. 1 +ollo, p. 16.
Notice of lis pendens.& .The notice of lis pendens hereinaove -entioned -ay e cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper sho+ing that the notice is for the purpose of -olesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessaryto protect the rights of the party +ho caused it to e recorded. #4-phasis supplied%.I1J !ection 77 of *.". 1@29 provides) %ancellation of lis pendens.: efore final 'udg-ent, a notice of lis
pendens -ay e cancelled, upon order of the court, after proper sho+ing that the notice is for the purposeof -olesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party +ho caused it toe registered. =t -ay also e cancelled y the &egister of "eeds upon the verified petition of the party+ho caused the registration thereof. #4-phasis supplied%.
I10J !a'onas v. CA, 2@8 !C&A 79 >arin v. CA, 2@ !C&A 187 Tanchoco v. Auino, 1@0 !C&A 1 (.*.*ellicer G Co., =nc. v. *hilippine &ealty Corp., 87 *hil. 2.I1@J Catapusan v. CA, 260 !C&A @0.I16J 3illanueva v. CA, >.&. /o. 11718, /ove-er @, 1997.I17J The other instances +here the notice of lis pendens is proper are) a% an action to recover possessionof real estate, % an action to uiet title thereto, c% an action re-ove clouds thereon, d% any other proceedings of any ind in Court directly affecting the title to the land or the use or occupation thereof or the uildings thereon. !ee Magdalena ;o-eo+ners Association, =nc. v. CA, 180 !C&A 2@ #199% citedin 3illanueva v. CA, >.&. /o. 11718, /ove-er @, 1997 !ee also !ection 10, &ule 1 #for-erly !ection20, &ule 10%, 1997 &ules of Civil *rocedure and !ection 76 of *.". [email protected] Anne ; of the *etition +ollo, p. 61.I19J !ection1, &ule 11.I2J 1997 &ules of Civil *rocedure, !ection 1, &ule 69. %o$plaint in action for partition of real estate.& Aperson having the right to co-pel the partition of real estate -ay do so as provided in this &ule, settingforth in his co-plaint the nature and etent of his title and an adeuate description of the real estate of +hich partition is de-anded and 'oining as defendants all other persons interested in the property.#4-phasis supplied%.
REPUBLI$ OF "#E P#ILIPPINES, petitioner:appellant,
vs.
$OUR" OF APPEALS, A 6 A "ORRIOS ENGINEERING $ORPORA"ION, FRAN$IS$A S.
BO%BASI, #ER$ULINO %. DEO, FRU$"UOSA LABORADA a' REGIS"ER OF DEEDS OF$ALOO$AN $I",respondents:appellees.
/ffice of te Solicitor General for petitioner.
Gonzalo D. David for respondents.
AUNO, J.:
These t+o cases are aout the cancellation and annul-ent of reconstituted Torrens titles +hoseoriginals are eisting and +hose reconstitution +as, therefore, uncalled for.
1. ots /os. 91@ and 918 of the Tala 4state, +ith areas of -ore than t+enty:five and t+enty:four
hectares, respectively, located at /ovaliches, Caloocan, no+ Kueon City, are registered in the
na-e of the%o$$onwealt of te Pilippines, as sho+n in Transfer Certificates of Title /os. 0@90
and 0@96 of the &egistry of "eeds of &ial oth dated April 01, 2304.
The originals of those titles are on file in the registry of deeds in *asig, &ial. They +ere not
destroyed during the +ar. 4ven the originals of the preceding cancelled titles for those t+o lots,
na-ely, Transfer Certificates of Title /os. 1@82 and 1@80 in the na-e of the *hilippine Trust
Co-pany, are intact in the registry of deeds.
2. The reconstitution proceeding started +hen 5ructuosa aorada, a +ido+ residing at 166@ =nterior
12 "art !treet, *aco, Manila, filed in the Court of 5irst =nstance of &ial at Caloocan City a petition
dated /ove-er, 1967 for the reconstitution of the title covering the aove:-entioned ot /o. 91@.
!he alleged that she +as the o+ner of the lot and that the title covering it, the nu-er of +hich she
could not specify, +as $/.A.$ or not availale #Civil Case /o. C:677%. The petition +as s+orn to on
. <n April 2, 1968, the lo+er court issued an order setting the petition for hearing on (une 10, 1968.
The notice of hearing +as pulished in the <fficial >aette. Copies thereof +ere posted in threeconspicuous places in Caloocan City and +ere furnished the supposed ad'oining o+ners #@:@0,
Consolidated &ecord on Appeal%. The registers of deeds of Caloocan City and &ial +ere not served
+ith copies of the petition and notice of hearing.
0. !tate *rosecutor 4nriue A. Cue, as supposed counsel for the >overn-ent, did not oppose the
petition. aorada presented her evidence efore the deputy cler of court. (udge !erafin !alvador
in his $decision$ dated (uly 6, 1968 granted the petition.
;e found that ot /o. 91@ +as covered y a transfer certificate of title +hich +as not availale and
+hich +as issued to Maria uea +ho sold the lot to aorada. The transfer certificate of title
covering the lot +as allegedly destroyed during the +ar. The plan and technical description for the lot
+ere approved y the Co--issioner of and &egistration +ho reco--ended favorale action on
the petition #pp. @:@6, Consolidated &ecord on Appeal%.
@. The lo+er court directed the register of deeds of Caloocan City to reconstitute the title for ot /o.
91@ in the na-e of aorada. The order of reconstitution +as not appealed. =t eca-e final and
eecutory.
6. Acting on the court?s directive, the register of deeds issued to aorada on August 10, 1968
Transfer Certificate of Title /o. #/.A.% :#&% ot /o. 91@ +as later sudivided into seven lots, ots
/os. 91@:A to 91@:>. The Acting Co--issioner of and &egistration approved the sudivision plan.
The register of deeds cancelled TCT /o. #/.A.% :#&% and issued on <ctoer 1@, 1968 seven titles to
aorada, na-ely, TCT /os. 2@7 to 26 #pp. @6:@9, 61:8, Consolidated &ecord on Appeal%.
7. =n another and later case, Civil Case /o. C:76 of the lo+er court, one 5rancisco !. o-ast,single, residing at 221 !an Marcelino !treet, Malate, Manila filed in the lo+er court a petition dated
/ove-er 16, 1967 for the reconstitution of the title of another lot, the afore-entioned ot /o. 918.
!he could not specify the nu-er of the title. !he alleged that the title +as $/.A$ or not availale.
!he clai-ed to e the o+ner of the lot and that the title covering it +as destroyed during the +ar.
ie the first petition, the second petition +as s+orn to on the sa-e date, /ove-er 16, 1967,
efore Manila notary "o-ingo *. Auino. hy it +as not filed si-ultaneously +ith aorada?s
petition +as not eplained. #17:21, Consolidated &ecord on Appeal.%
8. The lo+er court set the second petition for hearing on (anuary 1, 1969. As in aorada?s petition,
the notice of hearing for o-ast?s petition +as pulished in the <fficial >aette. =t +as posted inthree conspicuous places in Caloocan City and copies thereof +ere sent to the supposed ad'oining
o+ners #22, Consolidated &ecord on Appeal%. ut no copies of the petition and notice of hearing
+ere served upon the registers of deeds of Caloocan City and &ial, the officials +ho +ould e
interested in the reconstitution of the supposed lost title and +ho could certify +hether the original of
the title +as really -issing.
9. o-ast?s petition +as assigned also to (udge !alvador. =t +as not opposed y the govern-ent
la+yers, 4nriue A. Cue and Conrado de eon, (udge !alvador in his order of April , 1969 granted
the petition.
The court found fro- the evidence that the allegedly -issing or $not availale$ title +as issued to&egino >olle +ho sold the land to petitioner o-ast. The o+ner?s duplicate of >olle?s title +as
supposedly destroyed during the +ar. Taes +ere paid for that land y >olle and o-ast. The
technical description of the land the plan +ere approved y the Co--issioner of and &egistration
+ho su-itted a report reco--ending the reconstitution of the title #pp. 22:2@, Consolidated &ecord
1. The lo+er court ordered the register of deeds to reconstitute the -issing title of ot /o. 918 in
the na-e of o-ast. Acting on that directive, the register of deeds issued to o-ast Transfer
Certificate of Title /o. /.A.5+- dated August 67, 2383#pp. 20:27, Consolidated &ecord on Appeal%.
11. <n March 2@, 1969 or five -onths before the issuance of the reconstituted title, 5rancisca
o-ast, no+ =dentified as single #not +ido+% and a resident of 166@ #nterior 26 Dart Street Paco,anila, wic was te sa$e address used by Fructuosa 9aborada #o-ast used first the address
221 !an Marcelino !treet% sold ot /o. 918 to ;erculano M. "eo allegedly for *209,88. Transfer
Certificate of Title /o. 0106& +as issued to "eo.
<n <ctoer 28, 1969, "eo sold the lot to A G A Torri'os 4ngineering Corporation allegedly for
*2@,. Transfer Certificate of Title /o. 0107:& +as issued to the corporation #pp. 1:11, 29:0,
Consolidated &ecord on Appeal%.
12. <n May 2@ and 26, 197, the !tate filed t+o petitions for the cancellation and annul-ent of the
reconstituted titles and the titles issued suseuent thereto #Civil Cases /os. 1780 and 178@%. (udge
!alvador, +ho had ordered the reconstitution of the titles and to +ho- the t+o cases for cancellation+ere assigned, issued on (une @, 197 restraining orders en'oining the register of deeds, city
engineer and Co--issioner of and &egistration fro- accepting or recording any transaction
regarding ots /os. 91@ and 918.
1. The respondents in the t+o cases, through a co--on la+yer, filed separate ans+ers containing
-ere denials. The Co--issioner of and &egistration filed pro for$a ans+ers +herein he
interposed no o'ection to the issuance of the preli-inary in'unction sought y the !tate. After a 'oint
trial of the t+o cases, respondents corporation and aorada filed a-ended ans+ers +herein they
pleaded the defense that they +ere purchasers in good faith and for value.
10. <n (une 22, 1972, (udge !alvador #+ho did not other to inhiit hi-self% rendered a decision inthe t+o cases holding that the !tate?s evidence +as insufficient to estalish its o+nership and
possession of ots /os. 91@ and 918 and that aorada and A G A Torri'os 4ngineering Corporation
+ere purchasers in good faith and for value and, conseuently, their titles are not cancellale and
annullale.
(udge !alvador further held that the titles, +hose reconstitution he had ordered allegedly in
confor-ity +ith la+, could not e attaced collaterally and, therefore, $the reconstituted titles and
their derivatives have the sa-e validity, force and effect as the originals efore the reconstitution$
#pp. 16:161, Consolidated &ecord on Appeal%. The !tate appealed.
1@. The Court of Appeals, in affir-ing the lo+er court?s 'udg-ent, held that the orders ofreconstitution dated (uly 6, 1968 and April , 1969 could no longer e set aside on May 26, 197,
+hen the petitions for annul-ent and cancellation of the reconstituted titles +ere filed, and that if
there +ere irregularities in the reconstitution, then, as et+een t+o innocent parties, the !tate, as
the party that -ade possile the reconstitution, should suffer the loss. The Court of Appeals cited
section 11 of Act 096 to support its vie+ that a registered o+ner -ay lose his land $y the
registration of any other person as o+ner of such land$.
The !tate appealed to this Court. e hold that the appeal is 'ustified. The Appellate Court and the
trial court grievously erred in sustaining the validity of the reconstituted titles +hich, although issued
+ith 'udicial sanction, are no etter than spurious and forged titles.
=n all candor, it should e stated that the reconstitution proceedings, Civil Cases /os. C:677 and C:
76, +ere si-ply devices e-ployed y petitioners aorada and o-ast for landgrabbing or for theusurpation and illegal appropriation of fifty hectares of !tate:o+ned uran land +ith considerale
value.
The crucial and decisive fact, to +hich no i-portance +as attached y the lo+er court and the 5ifth
"ivision of the Court of Appeals #&eyes, .., "o-ondon and 4ricta, ((.%, is that t+o valid and
eisting Torrens titles in the na-e of the Co--on+ealth of the *hilippines +ere needlessly
reconstituted in the na-es of aorada and o-ast on the false or per'urious assu-ption that the
t+o titles +ere destroyed during the +ar.
That ind of reconstitution +as a raen and -onstrous fraud foisted on the courts of 'ustice. =t +as
a stultification of the 'udicial process. <ne and the sa-e 'udge #1% allo+ed the reconstitution andthen #2% decided the t+o suseuent cases for the cancellation and annul-ent of the +rongfully
reconstituted titles.
The eistence of the t+o titles of the >overn-ent for ots /os. 91@ and 918 ipso facto nullified the
reconstitution proceedings and signified that the evidence in the said proceedings as to the alleged
o+nership of aorada and o-ast cannot e given any credence. The t+o proceedings +ere
sha- and deceitful and +ere filed in ad faith. !uch hu-uggery or i-posture cannot e
countenanced and cannot e the source of legiti-ate rights and enefits.
&epulic Act /o. 26 provides for a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens certificates of
title that are -issing and not fictitious titles or titles +hich are eisting. =t is a patent asurdity toreconstitute eisting certificates of title that are on file and availale in the registry of deeds. The
reconstitution proceedings in Civil Cases /os. C:677 and C: 76 are void ecause they are contrary
to &epulic Act /o. 26 and eyond the purvie+ of that la+ since the titles reconstituted are actually
susisting in the registry of deeds and do not reuire reconstitution at all. As a rule, acts eecuted
against the provisions of -andatory la+s are void #Art. @, Civil Code%.
To sustain the validity of the reconstituted titles in these cases +ould e to allo+ &epulic Act /o. 26
to e utilied as an instru-ent for landgraing #!ee &epulic vs. Court of Appeals, <ca-po and
Anglo, :1:0, May 1, 1978, 8 !C&A 0@, 08, per (. >.!. !antos% or to sanction fraudulent
-achinations for depriving a registered o+ner of his land, to under-ine the staility and security of
Torrens titles and to i-pair the Torrens syste- of registration. The theory of A G A Torri'os4ngineering Corporation that it +as a purchaser in good faith and for value is indefensile ecause
the title of the lot +hich it purchased un-istaaly sho+s that such title +as reconstituted. That
circu-stance should have alerted its officers to -ae the necessary investigation in the registry of
deeds of Caloocan City and &ial +here they could have found that ot 918 is o+ned y the !tate.
;4&45<&4, the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are reversed and set aside.
The reconstitution proceedings in Civil Cases /os. C:677 and C:76 are declared void and are set
aside. The reconstituted titles, Transfer Certificates of Title /os. /.A. :#&% and /.A. 0:#&% and
Transfer Certificates of Title /os. 0106:&, 0107:& and 2@7 to 26 and the survey plans and
sudivision plan connected there+ith are lie+ise declared void. The register of deeds is directed to
cancel the said titles.
The &epulic of the *hilippines, as the successor of the Co--on+ealth of the *hilippines, is hereydeclared the registered o+ner of ots 91@ and 918 of the Tala 4state, as sho+n in Transfer
Certificates of Title /os. 0@90 and 0@96 of the registry of deeds of &ial. Costs against the private
respondents:appellees.
!< <&"4&4".
%oncepcion, (r. and Santos, ((., concur.
Antonio, (., too* no part.
Seara&e O:':o'(
ABAD SAN"OS, J., concurring)
My vocaulary is inadeuate to epress -y disgust and indignation at this roen landgraing.
BARREDO, ;$<a:r5a'=, J., concurring)
= concur fully in the +ell:reasoned -ain opinion of Mr. (ustice Auino, if only ecause it is to -e
inconceivale ho+ any court can order the reconstitution of a supposed lost torrens title +hen the
record sho+s eyond dout that the land in uestion, per its technical description and location, is
covered already y another title actually susisting in the office of the corresponding register of
deeds.
= a- +riting this separate opinion only to underscore -y considered vie+ that considering the
records that the various offices of the govern-ent having to do +ith the -atter should eep regularly,
lie the and &egistration Co--ission, the ureau of ands and the corresponding &egister of"eeds, only ad faith and ad faith alone can give occasion to occurrences lie +hat happened in
this case. The Torrens syste- of land registration +as conceived to give every duly registered o+ner
co-plete peace of -ind as long as he has not voluntarily disposed of any right over the sa-e in the
-anner allo+ed y la+ that he +ould e safe in his o+nership and its conseuent rights. The
provision aout recourse to the Assurance 5und +as not included in the Act for the enefit of
scoundrels +ho -ight ingeniously $steal$ lands nor to open opportunities for chicanery of any shade
/or is the 'udiciary +ithout any responsiility in the pre-ises. (udges -ust ear in -ind that. the
reconstitution of torrens titles after a +ar or other national catastrophe is a function that deserves the
-ost careful and scrupulous attention, certainly not a perfunctory, -uch less -inisterial chore to e
perfor-ed on the asis si-ply of easily otainale pro for-a certificates of other officials concerned.
= +ould go as far as to reuire oral testi-ony of the said official, unless this e very inconvenient,
su'ect to closest scrutiny as to the veracity of his records. There is asolutely no ecuse for a 'udgeto ignore the actual eistence of a title in the office of the &egister of "eeds covering the sa-e land
clai-ed y another +ho alleges his title thereto his een lost, asent any sho+ing of voluntary
transfers or other la+ful trans-ission y the registered o+ner in favor of a person fro- +ho- the
petitioner could have otained his right.
There are too -any fae titles eing peddled around and it ehooves every official of the
govern-ent +hose functions concern the issuance of legal titles to see to it that this plague that has
-ade a -ocery of the Torrens syste- is eradicated right no+ through their loyalty, devotion,
honesty and integrity, in the interest of our country and people at large.
> Seara&e O:':o'(
ABAD SAN"OS, J., concurring)
My vocaulary is inadeuate to epress -y disgust and indignation at this roen landgraing.
BARREDO, ;$<a:r5a'=, J., concurring)
= concur fully in the +ell:reasoned -ain opinion of Mr. (ustice Auino, if only ecause it is to -e
inconceivale ho+ any court can order the reconstitution of a supposed lost torrens title +hen the
record sho+s eyond dout that the land in uestion, per its technical description and location, is
covered already y another title actually susisting in the office of the corresponding register of
deeds.
= a- +riting this separate opinion only to underscore -y considered vie+ that considering the
records that the various offices of the govern-ent having to do +ith the -atter should eep regularly,
lie the and &egistration Co--ission, the ureau of ands and the corresponding &egister of
"eeds, only ad faith and ad faith alone can give occasion to occurrences lie +hat happened in
this case. The Torrens syste- of land registration +as conceived to give every duly registered o+ner co-plete peace of -ind as long as he has not voluntarily disposed of any right over the sa-e in the
-anner allo+ed y la+ that he +ould e safe in his o+nership and its conseuent rights. The
provision aout recourse to the Assurance 5und +as not included in the Act for the enefit of
scoundrels +ho -ight ingeniously $steal$ lands nor to open opportunities for chicanery of any shade
/or is the 'udiciary +ithout any responsiility in the pre-ises. (udges -ust ear in -ind that. the
reconstitution of torrens titles after a +ar or other national catastrophe is a function that deserves the
-ost careful and scrupulous attention, certainly not a perfunctory, -uch less -inisterial chore to e
perfor-ed on the asis si-ply of easily otainale pro for-a certificates of other officials concerned.
= +ould go as far as to reuire oral testi-ony of the said official, unless this e very inconvenient,
su'ect to closest scrutiny as to the veracity of his records. There is asolutely no ecuse for a 'udgeto ignore the actual eistence of a title in the office of the &egister of "eeds covering the sa-e land
clai-ed y another +ho alleges his title thereto his een lost, asent any sho+ing of voluntary
transfers or other la+ful trans-ission y the registered o+ner in favor of a person fro- +ho- the
petitioner could have otained his right.
There are too -any fae titles eing peddled around and it ehooves every official of the
govern-ent +hose functions concern the issuance of legal titles to see to it that this plague that has
-ade a -ocery of the Torrens syste- is eradicated right no+ through their loyalty, devotion,
honesty and integrity, in the interest of our country and people at large.
%ARIA DEL $ONSUELO FELISA RO?AS $#UIDIAN, petitioner:appellee,
vs.
RAFAEL ENRIUE/, E" AL., o'ectors:appellants.
Soutwort and Faison for appellants.
D. +. :illia$s for appellee.
O#NSON, J.:
=t appears fro- the record that on the 12th day of (anuary, 196, the said petitioner, Maria del
Consuelo 5elisa &oas y Chuidian, presented a petition in the Court of and &egistration for the
purpose of having registered, under the Torrens syste-, four parcels of land, no+n as *arcel A,*arcel , *arcel C, and *arcel ", all of +hich +ere located in the city of Manila. The only one of said
parcels to +hich attention need e given in the present appeal is *arcel A.
5ro- an ea-ination of said petition +e find that parcel A +as descried generally and technically.
=. General description. L =t is a parcel of land +ith the uildings erected thereon, located in
the district of inondo of this city et+een /os. 80, 9, 92, 90, and 96 Calle 4scolta and the
northern an of the *asig &iver ounded on the north y Calle 4scolta for 1.8 -eters, on
the south y the *asig &iver for [email protected] -eters, on the east y the estate of *edro *. &oas
for 66.08 -eters, and on the +est y the estate of the heirs of Antonio 4nriue for 62.1
-eters +ith an area of 1,817. suare -eters as set forth in the attached plan.
==. ;ecnical description. L The undersigned on the 26th of the present -onth proceeded to
survey and fi the oundaries for preparing the topographical plan of a lot occupied y
uildings of strong -aterials one and t+o stories high elonging to Maria del Consuelo
&oas y Chuidian, located in the district of inondo of this city et+een /os. 80, 9, 92, 90,
and 96 Calle 4scolta and the northern an of the *asig &iver. The point -ared on the plan
+ith the letter $D,$ located at the verte of the angle for-ed y the northeastern side of Calle
4scolta and the corner of the *asa'e de *ere +as selected as the asic point, +hence !.
09 0? ., 27.7@ -eters is located *oint A, chosen as the point of eginning for the
topographical operations, the result +hereof is as follo+s)2awpil.net
Messrs. !algado, >ordillo and Martine, /o. 2 Messrs. >reilsa--er ros., /o. 6and Messrs. illia-s G Chandler, /o. 0, upstairs these on Calle 4scolta Antonio
3y Chuico, /o. 226, and i- Tinco, /o. 2, these t+o on Calle &osario Ang !eng
Kueng, Calle /ueva /o. 109 and Candido i-, Calle (aoneros /o. 11 all these
of the district of inondo Messrs. ;artigan, &ohde G >utierre, attorneys of the heirs
of Antonio 4nriue, Calle !anto To-as, corner of Calle Caildo, district of
=ntra-uros Car-en Ayala de &oas, /o. 1@0 and Mai-o Cortes and "olores
<choa, these t+o /o. , the three on Calle MalacaRang, district of !an Miguel
5rancisco !ae, *laa de >oiti /o. 10, Alfonso Tiaoui, Calle acoste /o. 122, and
>ervasio &osario 3entura, Calle "ulu-ayan /o. 111, these three of the district of
!anta Cru and 4nriue !o-es, Calle Ali /o. 10, district of !a-paloc all of the
city of Manila, *. =., and to all +ho- it -ay concern)
hereas an application has een presented to said court y Maria del Consuelo 5elisa
&oas y Chuidian, through her attorney in fact Antonio onifas, Calle *adre ;errera /o. @9,
district of Tondo, city of Manila, *. =., to register and confir- her title in the follo+ing
descried land) 5our parcels of land +ith the i-prove-ents of strong -aterials thereon,
situated in the district of inondo, Manila, *. =., -ore particularly ounded and descried as
follo+s)
Parcel A. L !ituated on the 4scolta /os. 80:96, eginning at a pt. -ared $A$ on plan, eing
!. 09 0? ., 27.7@ -. fro- the . end of the chaflan at the !. intersection of the 4scolta
and *asa'e de *ere thence !. 06 ? ., 1.8 -. along the !4. line of the 4scolta, to pt.$$ !. 06 1@? 4., 16.1@ -. to pt. $C$ !. 02 4., 2.7@ -. to pt. $"$ !. 0 @? 4., 1.2 -. to
pt. $4$ /. 09 0@? 4., 10.2@ -. to pt. $5$ /. @2 4., 1.90 -. to pt. $>$ /. 6 2? ., 10.2
-. to pt. $;$ /. 8 0? ., 17.16 -. to pt. $=$ /. @2 @? 4., 2.27 -. to pt. $($ /. 8 @? .,
0.12 -. to pt. $P$ /. @ ? 4., . -. to pt. $$ /. 0 @? ., 10 -. to pt. $M$ /. 00 .,
1@.@ -. to pt. $4$ to $>$ follo+ the /. an of the *asig &iver.
ounded on the /4. y property of Car-en Ayala de &oas !4. y the *asig &iver !. y
property of the heirs of Antonio 4nriue and /. y the 4scolta.
"ate of survey, "ece-er 26, 19@.
Eou are herey cited to appear at the Court of and &egistration to e held at the City ;all,Calada de las Aguadas, city of Manila, *. =., on the 2@th day of April, A. ". nineteen hundred
and si, at 8 o?cloc in the forenoon, to sho+ cause, if any you have, +hy the prayer of said
application shall not e granted and unless you appear at such court at the ti-e and place
aforesaid your default +ill e recorded and the said application +ill e taen as confessed,
and you +ill e forever arred fro- contesting said application or any decree entered
thereon.
itness the ;on. !. del &osario, 'udge of said court, this 2d day of March in the year
nineteen hundred and si.
Attest) A. P. (</4!,%ler* of said %ourt.
=n accordance +ith said order of pulication, the cler of the Court of and &egistration, on the 28th
day of March, 196, sent a copy of said order to each of the persons -entioned therein, y
registered -ail. The record sho+s that each of said persons received a copy of said notice, including
the representative of the heirs of Antonio 4nriue #;artigan, &ohde G >utierre%. The record further
sho+s, y the certificate of (a-es (. *eterson, sheriff of the city of Manila, that said notice +as
posted upon the land in uestion. The record further sho+s that said notice had een pulished in
t+o daily ne+spapers of the city of Manila. ;e anila ;i$es and 9a De$ocracia.
<n the 17th day of April, 196, A. P. (ones, cler of the Court of and &egistration, -ade thefollo+ing certificate relating to the notice and to the pulication of the notices reuired y section 1
of Act /o. 096.
H/=T4" !TAT4! <5 AM4&=CA,
*;==**=/4 =!A/"!.
C<H&T <5 A/" &4>=!T&AT=</.
Case /o. 189@.
aria del %onsuelo Felisa +oxas y %uidian, Applicant.
=, A. P. (ones, cler of the Court of and &egistration of the *hilippine =slands, certify that, in
co-pliance +ith the order issued y said court, a notice referring to the application for
registry /o. 189@, presented y Antonio onifas, as representative of Maria del Consuelo
5elisa &oas y Chuidian, +as pulished once only in the daily ne+spapers of this city, ;e
anila ;i$es on March 28, 196, and 9a De$ocracia on the 1st of the sa-e -onth and
year, in 4nglish and !panish respectively, and notice +as served upon the Attorney:>eneral
of the *hilippine =slands the Municipal oard of the city of Manila A. !ing A. ure Mace
G Chandler 5. M. !ousa &a-on >enato To-as !errano &osendo Co-as Cheng Tao
!ang uciano Cordoa !algado, >ordillo G Martine >reilsa--er ;er-anos illia-s G
Chandler Antonio 3y Chuico i- Tinco Ang !eng Kueng Candido i- ;artigan, &ohde G
>utierre Car-en Ayala de &oas Mai-o Cortes and "olores <choa, 5rancisco !ae
Alfonso Tiaoui >ervasia &osario 3entura and 4nriue !o-es, a copy of said notice in
!panish having een sent to each one on March 28, 196, y registered -ail. And for thepurposes of the necessary procedure, = issue the present in Manila on the 17th day of April,
196.
A. P. (</4!,
%ler* of te %ourt.
<n the 19th day of April, 196, the record sho+s that Modesto &eyes, attorney for the city of Manila
#p. 11, record% presented a +ritten state-ent to the court calling its attention to the fact that there
eisted an $error of closure$ in the plan of said *arcel A, and ased the court to correct the error. The
said attorney also called the attention of the other plans of the other parcels of land, included in the
original petition. <ur attention has not een called to any order -ade y the lo+er court, relating tosaid reuest of the attorney of the city of Manila.
=n accordance +ith said notice to all of the interested parties, the hearing on the said petition +as
rought on for trial on the 2@th day of April, 196, at 9 o?cloc a. -., at the place -entioned in said
notice. At the hearing the petitioner +as represented. /o one appeared to represent the $heirs of
Antonio 4nriue.$
<n said date #April 2@, 196, at 9 o?cloc a. -.% the cause relating to said *arcel A +as rought on
for trial. Mr. Antonio onifas appeared for the petitioner and My. Modesto &eyes, attorney for the city
of Manila, appeared for the city of Manila. Mr. &eyes called the attention of the court again to the fact
that there eisted certain errors in the -easure-ent of so-e of the sides of the plan presented ythe petitioner. =n vie+ of said fact #the eistence of errors% the court ordered that said errors e
corrected. !o far as the record sho+s no correction +hatever +as -ade in the plan of said *arcel A.
<n the 21st day of (uly, 196, the cause having een rought on for hearing, the honorale
!i-plicio del &osario, 'udge, distated the follo+ing order or 'udg-ent in default against all persons)
H/=T4" !TAT4! <5 AM4&=CA,
*;==**=/4 =!A/"!.
C<H&T <5 A/" &4>=!T&AT=</.
/o. 189@.
Application of aria del %onsuelo Felisa +oxas y %uidian for registration of te real
artinez< Greilsa$$er !er$anos< :illia$s ? %andler< Antonio @y %uico< 9i$
;inco< And Seng ueng< %andido 9i$< !artigan, +ode ? Gutierrez< %ar$en Ayala
de +oxas< axi$o %ortes and Dolores /coa< Francisco Saez< Alfonso ;iao'ui<Gervasia +osario @entura< and Bnri'ue So$es< and wo$soever it $ay concern,
defendants.
The present case having een duly tried, and
hereas, the cler of this court caused to e pulished once only a notice in due fro-
referring to the application -entioned, in t+o ne+spapers of general circulation, one printed
in the 4nglish language and another in the !panish language, to +it, The Manila Ti-es of
this city, and a "e-ocracia of the sa-e city and 119 days have elapsed since pulication
of said notice +as effected
hereas, said cler caused to e sent y registered -ail, +ithin seven days after the
pulication of the said notice, a copy thereof in the !panish language to each one of the
persons na-ed in the application or +ho appeared to e concerned therein
hereas, the sheriff of Manila posted in a conspicuous place on each of the parcels of land
included in the application a certified copy of the notice in !panish, and also in a
conspicuous place in the principal -unicipal uilding of the city of Manila, efore the fourteen
days preceding that set for the ter-ination of the period fied
hereas, all of the persons cited as defendants have failed to appear to i-pugn the
application, +ithin the period fied y the la+
This court orders a declaration of default against all the defendants and other persons +ho
-ay e concerned in opposing the application, +hich is granted.
>iven y the ;onorale !. del &osario, 'udge of the said Court of and &egistration, in
Manila, this 21st day of (uly, 196.
Attest) A. P. (</4!,
%ler* of te %ourt.
ater the ;onorale !i-plicio del &osario dictated the follo+ing order, decreeing that said parcel ofland, A, e registered as the asolute property of Maria del Consuelo 5elisa &oas E Chuidian. !aid
decree +as as follo+s)
;aving tried case /o. 189@, this court decrees that Maria del Consuelo 5elisa &oas y
Chuidian, of Manila, *hilippine =slands, applicant, spinster, is the asolute o+ner of the real
property, +hich is ad'udicated to her, located in the city of Manila, the description +hereof is
A parcel of land, situated at /os. 80 to 96 Calle 4scolta, district of inondo ounded on the
/4. y the property of Car-en Ayala de &oas on the !4. y the *asig &iver on the !.
y the property of the heirs of Antonio 4nriue and on the /. y Calle 4scolta.
eginning at a point -ared A on the plan, +hich point is 27.7@ -. !., 09 0? . fro- the
etre-e . of the angle situated at the intersection !. of Calle 4scolta and *assage de*ere and fro- said point A., !., 06 ? ., 1.8 -. to point thence !., 06 1@? 4., 16.1@
-. to point C thence !., 02 4., 2.7@ -. to point " thence !., 0 @? 4., 1.2 -. to point
4. thence /., 09 0@? 4., 10.2@ -. to point 5 thence /., @2 4., 1.90 -. to point > thence
/., 6 2? ., 10.2 -. to point ; thence /., 8 0? ., 17.16 -. to point = thence /., @2
@? 4., 2.27 -. to point ( thence /., 8 @? ., 0.12 -. to point P thence /., @ ? 4.,
. -. to point thence /., 0 @? ., 10 -. to point M thence /., 00 ., 1@.@ -. to
point of eginning having an area of 1,817. suare -eters.
All the points na-ed are -ared on the plan the earings are -agnetic date of survey,
"ece-er 26, 19@.
herefore this court orders that the said real property e registered in accordance +ith the
provisions of the and &egistration Act in the na-e of the aforesaid Maria del Consuelo
5elisa &oas y Chuidian, su'ect ho+ever to any of the encu-rances set forth in section 9
of said Act that -ay e in force and effect.
>iven y the ;onorale !. del &osario, 'udge of the said Court of and &egistration, in
Manila, this t+enty:first day of (uly, nineteen hundred and si, at eight o?cloc and ten
-inutes ante -eridian.
Attest)
I!4A.J #!gd.% A. P. (ones,%ler* of te %ourt.
A copy of this decree +as sent to the register of deeds of Manila, !epte-er 2@, 196.
<n the 21st day of (uly, 196, the court issued the certificate of title no+n as /o. 702, and
delivered to the petitioner the o+ner?s duplicate, and the property eca-e registered under the
Torrens syste-, in the na-e of the petitioner.
After the registration of said *arcel A in the na-e of the petitioner, on the 21st day of (uly, 196,
nothing further see-s to have een done in the Court of and &egistration until on or aout the 19th
day of "ece-er, 1911, nearly five years and a half after said land had een registered, +hen +efind that the assistant attorney of the city of Manila filed the follo+ing petition)
The city of Manila, through its undersigned attorney, co-es no+ into the court and
respectfully represents
=. That the plan of the property +ith +hich the present case deals is affected y an error of
closure greater than 1S1@
==. That the city of Manila is interested in the correction of said error as it has to epropriate a
portion of said land for use as a pulic street
Therefore, the petitioner prays the court to order a ne+ survey of said property descried in
the plan filed in this case.
Manila, *. =., "ece-er 18, 1911.
=t is not clear +hether said petition refers to the incorrections in the plan of *arcel A or to the
incorrections in the plans of the other parcels of land #, C, and "%, +hich +ere included in the
petition of the petitioner.
<n the 2d date of "ece-er, 1911, the honorale Charles ;. !-ith, 'udge of the Court of and
&egistration, referred the petition of the city of Manila to the chief surveyor of the court. <n the 27th
day of "ece-er, 1911, the said surveyor reported to the court that there eisted $errors of closure
in said plans.$
<n the @th day of (anuary, 1912, the 'udge of the Court of and &egistration ordered the chiefsurveyor to prepare ne+ plans, in accordance +ith section 0 of Act /o. 187@, and directed that
notice e given to the ad'oining o+ners.
<n the 28th day of 5eruary, 1912, the original petitioner, Maria del Consuelo 5elisa &oas y
Chuidian, presented a petition for the correction of the certificate issued to her on the 21st day of
(uly, 196, so as to include the uildings upon the lands included in her petition. !aid petition +as as
follo+s)
H/=T4" !TAT4! <5 AM4&=CA,
*;==**=/4 =!A/"!.
C<H&T <5 A/" &4>=!T&AT=</)
Case /o. 189@.
aria del %onsuelo Felisa +oxas y %uidian, applicant.
Co-es no+ the applicant into the ;onorale Court of and &egistration and represents)
1. That on (anuary 1, 196, "on Antonio onifas, in the na-e and representation of the
applicant, sought the legaliation of property title to four estates, a-ong the- the follo+ing)
#a% A parcel of land +ith the uildings erected thereon, located at /os. 80 to 96 Calle 4scolta,
district of inondo.
#b% Another parcel of land +ith the uildings erected thereon located at /os. 28 to 6 Calle
4scolta, district of inondo.
#c % Another parcel of land +ith the uildings erected thereon, located at /o. 109 Calle /ueva,
corner of Calle'on Carva'al, district of inondo.
2. That the other estate -entioned in the said application refers to a parcel of land, +ith the
uildings erected thereon, located at /os. 222 to 2 Calle &osario, district of inondo,
+hich uildings +ere totally destroyed y the fire that occurred on the 2d of /ove-er of the
year 'ust past, and it cannot therefore e included in the purpose of the present application.
. That in the said application it is stated that the land of the estate designated y the letter
#a% +as assessed at 6@,72 dollars and @ cents Hnited !tates currency, and the uildings at
18,@ dollars Hnited !tates currency that the land of the estate designated y the letter #b%
+as assessed at @@,2 dollars and @ cents, Hnited !tates currency, and the uildings at
1@, dollars, Hnited !tates currency and the land of the estate designated y the letter #c %
+as assessed at @,6@8 dollars Hnites !tates currency, and the uildings at @, dollars
Hnited !tates currency.
0. That oth in the property titles to the said estates and in the plans and technical
descriptions thereof +hich acco-pany said application and are anneed to the aove:
entitled case, it appears that on the parcels of land +hich for- part of the estates underconsideration there are erected uildings, consisting of t+o houses of strong -aterials, one
ehind the other, in the estate designated y the letter #a% a house of stone and -asonry in
that designated y the letter #b% and another house of stone and -asonry in that designated
y the letter #c %.
@. That in the record of the register of deeds, in the registration entries referring to the said
estates, it appears that they consist of the parcels of land and the uildings stated.
6. That in the notice to the Attorney:>eneral, the Municipal oard, the tenants, and o+ners
conter-inous +ith the estates referred to therein, the uildings erected on the- are lie+ise
-entioned.
7. That y decree of (une 21, 196, ad'udication and registration of the estates +ere ordered
in applicant?s favor in the ter-s set forth in the application ut in the certificate of the decree
or resolution under consideration, issued y the cler of the court, the description of the
parcel of land corresponding to each estate +as given, ut the respective uilding on each
+as o-itted, and in this for- +ere issued the certificates of title, /os. 072, 760, and 70,
8. That on (anuary 12, !epte-er 21, <ctoer 9 and 22, 196, the legal representative of
the applicant guaranteed y deposit, as assurance fund, the rights of issuance of title and
one:tenth of 1 per cent of the assessed valuation, the su- of *90.7 *hilippine currency,
the receipts and vouchers +herefore do not acco-pany this application ecause the
applicant destroyed the- in the elief that there +as no need to ehiit the-, ut averring
that the a-ounts paid for those purposes are credited in the accounting division of the Courtof and &egistration and the office of the register of deeds, as has een ascertained y a
person delegated therefor y the applicant.
9. That +hen applicant atte-pted to alienate one of the estates -entioned she oserved the
o-ission in the corresponding certificate of title of the uilding eisting thereon, the sa-e as
in the certificates of title corresponding to the other t+o estates and as it is to e supposed
that said o-ission is due solely to a si-ple clerical error, +hich nevertheless greatly affects
the applicant?s right, she appeals to your honorale court +ith the reuest that you order the
correction of said o-ission, especially as there at present eist on the said parcels of land,
+ithout -odification or alteration, the sa-e uildings that eisted +hen legaliation of title
thereto +as applied for and +hich appear in the titles of acuisition anneed to the aove:entitled case, reference +hereto has een -ade in the third paragraph.
1. That for greater assurance and for the purpose of proving that the said estates consist
not only in the parcel of land or lot ut also in the uilding erected on each, the applicant
attaches hereto the assess-ent or property:ta receipts for each of the said estates, +herein
are stated the t+o points -entioned.
11. That in vie+ of +hat has een set forth and eplained, the applicant prays the honorale
court to decree, after te necessary legal proceedings, correction of te o$ission referred to
y ordering the free issuance of a ne+ certificate of title to each of the said estates, werein
record be $ade of te building erected on eac, consisting of those enu-erated in the thirdparagraph of this application.
Manila, 5eruary 28, 1912.
MA&=A "4 C</!H4< 54=!A &<DA! E C;H="=A/.
<n the 9th of April, 1912, the Masonic Te-ple Association of Manila sent a co--unication to
;onorale Charles ;. !-ith, 'udge of the Court of and &egistration, acco-panied y a contract,
sho+ing that on the 2th day of March, 1912, Maria del Consuelo 5elisa &oas y Chuidian had sold
all her rights, title, and interest in said *arcel A, including te buildings tereon, to the said Masonic
Te-ple Association of Manila. !aid Masonic Te-ple Association of Manila reuested the 'udge of theand Court to attach said contract to the record in the case and issue a ne+ certificate to it.
<n the 19th day of April, 1912, a ne+ plan of said *arcel A, prepared y Mr. . . ;ay, surveyor of
the ureau of ands, +as presented, in accordance +ith the order of the court of the 2d of
"ece-er, 1911. !aid ne+ plan +as -ade for the purpose of correcting the errors in closure in the
original plan presented y the petitioner on the 1th day of (anuary, 196. !aid ne+ plan is as
After the presentation of said ne+ or corrected plan, the -otions)
#a% That of the city of Manila to have corrected the error of closure in the original plan
#b% That of Maria del Consuelo 5elisa &oas y Chuidian, to have included in her certificate of title the
uildings located upon the lands registered in accordance +ith her original petition and
#c % That of the Masonic Te-ple Association of Manila, to have a certificate issued to it in accordance
+ith its contract of purchase of said lands fro- Maria del Consuelo
Q-c 2908.-pO
5elisa &oas y Chuidian L after notice had een given to all the interested parties, were set downfor earing . 5or one reason or another, the hearings on said -otion +ere transferred fro- one date
to another fro- the 22d of April, 1912, until the 20th of August, 1912. "uring said various hearings,
in addition to the appoint-ent of a co--ission to vie+ the pre-ises, certain proof +as taen upon
the uestion of the correctness of the original plan presented y the petitioner, in (anuary, 196.
"uring said hearings the heirs of "on Antonio 4nriue appeared and apparently -ade so-e
o'ection to the granting of said -otions. They presented no +ritten state-ent in +hich their specific
o'ections appear. The nearest approach to a definite and specific state-ent of their o'ections
appears in the argu-ent of their counsel at the close of said several hearings, in +hich it appears
that their o'ections to the correction of the original plan and certificate and the issuance of a ne+
certificate to the Masonic Te-ple Association of Manila +as ased upon the ground that
they clai$ed ease$ents or servitudes in the land in the uestion.
After hearing all of the parties, the ;onorale Charles ;. !-ith, 'udge of the Court of and
&egistration, and his associates, the ;onorale (a-es A. <strand and the ;onorale /orerto
&o-ualde, auiliary 'udges of said court, sitting in anc, on the 20th day of August, 1912, y a
unani-ous decision, granted the -otions of the city of Manila, of Maria del Consuelo 5elisa &oas y
Chuidian, and of the Masonic Te-ple Association of Manila.
<n the 1th day of !epte-er, 1912, the attorneys for the ob)ectors presented a -otion for ne+ trial,
asing it upon the ground that the conclusions of the lo+er court +ere -anifestly contrary to the
proof. After a due consideration of said -otion for a ne+ trial and after hearing the respective
parties, the Court of and &egistration, sitting in anc, co-posed of Charles ;. !-ith, (a-es A.<strand, and /orerto &o-ualde, denied said -otion, and the case +as appealed to this court. =n
this court the respondents presented the follo+ing assign-ents of error)
1. That the court elo+ erred in holding that the proceedings of the Court of and
&egistration +ere valid in entering 'udg-ent in favor of the plaintiff and appellee, confir-ing
the title to lot 0, +hich is in controversy in this suit.
2. That the 'udg-ent of the lo+er court is contrary to la+.
. That the 'udg-ent of the court elo+ is against the -anifest +eight of the evidence.
After a careful ea-ination of the argu-ent of the appellants in support of each of said assign-ents
of error, +e are of the opinion that they -ay e discussed together.
=n the argu-ent of the appellants in support of their assign-ents of error, there is ut little argu-ent
against the decision of the court rendered on the 20th of August, 1912. *ractically the +hole
argu-ent of the appellants is ased upon the ground that the original certificate #/o. 702, issued
(uly 21, 196% is asolutely void, for the reason that $the appellants had no notice of the pendency of
the original action to confir- the title of said property.$ Appellants no+ ad-it that a notice of the
pendency of the original action +as sent to attorneys ;artigan, &ohde G #Marple% >utierre.
Appellants no+ allege that it affir-atively appears that neither this fir- nor any of its -e-ers
represented the defendants and appellants in that action. The record sho+s, as +e have pointed out
aove, that the original petition sho+ed that ;artigan, &ohde G >utierre +ere the representatives of
the heirs of "on Antonio 4nriue, and that notice +as duly sent to the-. e have searched therecord no+ in vain to find the slightest denial of the fact that they +ere the representatives of said
heirs, even though one of said attorneys represented the-, or at least so-e of the-, in the present
proceedings. !o far as the record sho+s there is not even a suggestion found in the various
hearings and proceedings taen and had under the aove -otions, that said attorneys +ere not the
representation of the heirs of "on Antonio 4nriue at the ti-e of the original proceedings. /either
does the record sho+ any atte-pt on their part to deny the fact that they received the notices given
in the original action. The appellants assert in their argu-ent that $personal notice +as asolutely
necessary in order to 'ustify the court elo+ in rendering a decree in favor of the plaintiff and
appellee, in the first instance$ #the original proceeding%. The appellants, y that argu-ent, atte-pt to
sho+, not that the 'udg-ent of the 20th of August, 1912, +as invalid, ut that the original certificate
#/o. 702% +as void, ecause they had not een served +ith personal notice. This rings us to theuestion +hether or not personal notice to all of the persons interested in an action for the
registration of real property under the Torrens syste-, is an asolute prereuisite to the validity of
said registration. =t +ill e re-e-ered that +e noted aove that personal notice of the pendency of
the original petition had een given and that a pulication of the sa-e had een -ade in accordance
+ith the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of Act /o. 096. After the epiration of the period during
+hich notice -ust e given, the original cause +as set do+n for hearing. The record also sho+s that
the cler of the and Court -ade a certificate sho+ing that that notice had een issued and
pulished in accordance +ith the la+. !ection 2 provides, in part, that said $certificate of te cler*
tat e ad served te notice as directed by te court, by publising or $ailing, sall be filed in te
case before te return day, and sall be conclusive proof of suc service .$
<n the day set for the hearing of said original petition, no one appeared to oppose the granting of
the prayer +hich it contained. !ection @ of Act /o. 096 provides) $=f no person appears and ans+er
+ithin the ti-e allo+ed, the court -ay at once, upon -otion of the applicant, no reason to the
contrary appearing, order a general default to e recorded and te application # petition% be ta*en for
confessed . y the description in the notice. C;o all wo$ it $ay concern,C all te world are $ade
parties defendant and sall be concluded by te default and order . The court shall not e ound y
the report of the ea-iner of titles, ut -ay reuire other and further proof.$
The provisions of section @ see- to e directly contrary to the contention of the appellants. =t
see-s to directly contradict the reuire-ents of personal notice as an asolute prereuisite to the
granting of a valid title under the Torrens syste-.
The sa-e idea is further confir-ed y the provisions of section 8 of said Act /o. 096. !aid section
8 provides that) $Bvery decree of registration sall bind te land and 'uite te title tereto, sub)ectonly to te exceptions stated in te following section. =t shall e conclusive upon and against all
persons, including the =nsular >overn-ent, and all the ranches thereof, +hether -entioned y
na-e in the application, notice or citations, or included in the general description ?;o all wo$ it $ay
concern.?$
There is a further and very strong inti-ation in the la+ that personal notice is not asolutely a
prereuisite to the validity of title under the Torrens syste-. !ection 2 #Act /o. 096% provides that)
$The court shall, so far as it dee$s it possible, reuire proof of actual notice to all the ad'oining
o+ners and to all persons +ho appear to have an interest in or clai- to the land included in the
application.$ #t will be noted also tat te petitioner in registration cases is not by law re'uired to give
any notice to any person. The la+ reuires the cler of the court to give the notices. #!ections 1and 2 of Act /o. 096.% =t is true that $the court -ay also cause other or further notice of the
application to e given in such a -anner and to such persons as it -ay dee- proper.$ Thus it is
seen that the applicant is y epress provision of la+ relieved fro- any oligation +hatsoever to give
-otive to any person of the pendency of his application to have his land registered under the Torrens
syste-. That eing true, upon +hat theory -ay the applicant e su'ected to harass-ent or delay or
additional epense, ecause so-e person clai-s that he did not receive actual personal notice
!ection 11 and 12 #Act /o. 096% see- to contain a re-edy for persons +ho have suffered
da-ages for the failure on the part of court officials to co-ply +ith the la+. #/ole !tate
an vs. ;asell, 219 H. !., 10.% ;is re-edy is not to have the registration and certificate annulled,
unless he co-es +ithin the provisions of section 8, and even then he is +ithout a re-edy against
the applicant unless he can sho+, +ithin a period of one year after the decree of registration and thegranting of the certificate, at he has een $deprived of land or any estate or interest therein,$ by
fraud , and not even then, if an $innocent purchaser for the value has acuired and interest.$ =n the
present case five years and a half had transpired and negotiations for the sale of the land to an
innocent purchaser had een ter-inated. There is not inti-ation that the petitioner is guilty of fraud,
in the slightes degree.
hile the Torrens and a+ is a la+ of -odern ti-es, is has een adopted in -any !tates and its
provisions have een attaced at al-ost every point. The reuire-ents relating to notices has een
a fruitful source of litigation. The constitutionality of the la+ has een attaced -any ti-es, ecause
of the provision of said la+ relating to notices. This is not the first ti-e that the uestion has een
presented to this court. The sa-e uestion +as presented to this court in the case of Grey Alba vs.De la %ruz #17 *hil. &ep., 09%. =n that case the registered title +as attaced upon the ground that
fraud eisted, si-ply ecause personal notice had not een given. The eistence of fraud +as
predicated upon the failure of actual personal notice. =n passing upon that uestion, this court,
speaing through Mr. (ustice Trent, said #uoting fro- the syllaus%)
=n original proceedings for the registration of land under Act /o. 096, the appellee herein +as
-ade a party: defendant y pulication, but was not personally served wit notice> !eld ,
That the decree of the Court of and &egistration is conclusive against his as +ell as all the
+orld.
The proceedings for the registration of land, under Act /o. 096, are in re$ and not in
persona$. A proceeding in re$, dealing +ith a tangile res, -ay e instituted and carried to
'udg-ent +ithout personal service upon the clai-ants +ithin the state or notice y na-e tothose outside of it. (urisdiction is secured y the po+er of the court over the res. !uch a
proceeding +ould e i-possile +ere this not so, for it +ould hardly do to -ae a distinction
et+een the constitutional rights of clai-ants +ho +ere no+n and those +ho +ere not
no+n to the plaintiff, +hen the proceeding is to ar all. #Tyler vs. (udges, 17@ Mass., 71.%
=n the present case there is not the slightest inti-ation that the original applicant #Maria del Consuelo
5elisa &oas y Chuidan% +as guilty of fraud. The record sho+s that she na-ed all the persons +ho
-ight have an interest in the registration of her land, in her petition. The applicant is not charged
even +ith negligence. The record sho+s that she did all the la+ reuired her to do.
=n discussing the Torrens and a+ +e -ust eep in -ind that its pri-ary purpose is the registrationof the title +hich the applicant or petitioner has and to relieve his land of unno+n liens or clai-s,
'ust or un'ust, against it. The Torrens syste- of land registration is a syste- for the registration
of title to land only, and not a syste- estalished for the acuisition of land. =t is not intended that
lands -ay e acuired y said syste- of registration. =t is intended only that the title, +hich the
petitioner has, shall e registered and therey cleared of all liens and urdens of +hatsoever
character, except those +hich shall e noted in the order of registration and in the certificate issued.
=f there eists *nown and 'ust clai-s against the title of the applicant, he gains nothing in effect y
his registration, ecept in the si-plicity of suseuent transfer of his title. The registration either
relieves the land of all no+n as +ell as unno+n clai-s, asolutely, or it co-pels the clai-ants to
co-e into court and to -ae there a record, so that thereafter there -ay e no uncertainlyconcerning either the character or the etent of such clai-s.
The reuire-ent that personal notice shall e a prereuisite to the validity of registration +ould
asolutely prohiit the foreclosure of unno+n clai-s, for the reason that personal notice could
never e given to $unno+n clai-ants.$ The great difficulty in land titles arises fro- the eistence of
possile unno+n clai-ants. Pno+n clai-ants can e dealt +ith. They furnish no valid i-pedi-ent,
in fact, to the transfer of titles.
Courts have held that in actions in re$ personal notice to o+ners of a res is not necessary to give
the courts 'urisdiction to deal +ith and to dispose of the res. #>rey Ala vs. "e la Cru, 17 *hil. &ep.,
09 Tyler vs. (udges, 17@ Mass., 71 A-erican and Co-pany vs. Feis, 219 H.!., 07.% This rule +asfirst estalished in ad-iralty proceedings. =t +as estalished out of the very necessities of the case.
The o+ner of a ship, for instance, lived in ondon. ;is ship +as found in the -ost distant ports of the
earth. =ts operation necessarily reuired supplies, such as -en, coal, and food. The very nature of its
usiness necessitated the -aing of contracts. The continuance of its voyage depended upon its
capacity to -ae contracts and to get credit. =t -ight also, perchance, cause da-age to other craft,
in lie conditions. To e ale to secure all such necessities, to satisfy all possile oligations, to
continue its voyage and its usiness on the high seas, -erchants and courts ca-e to regard the
$ship$ as a person, +ith +ho- or +ith +hich they +ere dealing, and not its real o+ner. Conseuently
there ca-e into eistence this action in re$. 5or the purpose of carrying into effect the roader
purposes of the Torrens land la+, it has een universally considered that the action should e
considered as one in re$. Mr. (ustice ;ol-es, then of the !upre-e Court of the !tate of
Massachusetts, and no+ a -e-er of the !upre-e Court of the Hnited !tate, in the case of
Tyler vs. (udges #17@ Mass., 71%, in discussing this uestion, said)
ooed at either fro- the point of vie+ of history or of the necessary reuire-ents of 'ustice,
a proceedingin re$, dealing +ith a tangile res, -ay e instituted and carried to 'udg-ent
+ithout personal service upon clai-ants +ithin the !tate or notice y na-e to those outside
of it, and not encounter any provision of either constitution #of the !tate of Massachusetts or
the Hnited !tates%. (urisdiction is secured y the po+er of the court over the res. As +e have
said, such a proceeding +ould e i-possile +ere this not so, for it hardly +ould dot to -ae
a distinction et+een the constitutional rights of clai-ants +ho +ere no+n and those +ho
+ere not no+n to the plaintiff, +hen the proceeding is to ar all. #*ennoyer vs. /eff, 9@
H.!., 710, 727 The Mary, 9 Cranch 126, 100.%
There are -any classes of cases +here -en -ay e deprived of their property and of their rights,
+ithout personal notice of the proceedings in +hich that -ay occur. 5or instance, in attach-ent
cases, notice or service upon the defendant -ay e had y pulication. #*ennoyer vs. /eff, 9@ H.!.,
710, 727.% !o also in divorce proceedings, as +ell as the rights of clai-ants against estates of
deceased persons, personal notice is not a prereuisite. /otice y pulication -ay e had. Also
unno+n clai-ants or o+ners -ay e rought into court +ithout personal notice in an action for the
conde-nation of private property for pulic use. There eists a -ultitude of cases in +hich personal
service is not necessary and service y pulication is sufficient.
The la+, even efore the Torrens a+, provided -eans y +hich title to land -ight e uited $y
notice y pulication to all persons.$ #;a-ilton vs. ro+n, 11 H.!., 2@6, 270 ;uling vs. Pa+ 3alley,etc., Co., 1 H.!., @@9, @60 *arer vs. <ver-an, 18 ;o+ard #/.E.% 17 A-erican and
Co-pany vs. Feiss, 219 H.!., 07 Arndt vs.>riggs, 10 H.!., 16 *erins vs. ae-an, 86 Cal.,
@8.%
4ven efore the Torrens a+ +as adopted, the states had the po+er and right to provide a
procedure for the ad'udication of title to real estate. The state had control over real property +ithin its
li-its. The conditions of o+nership of real estate in a state, +hether the o+ner e a stranger or a
citien, are su'ect to its rules, concerning the holding, transfer, liaility to oligations, private or
pulic, and the -odels of estalishing title thereto and for the purpose of deter-ining these
uestion, it #the state% -ay provide any reasonale rules or procedure. #Clar vs. !-ith, 1 *eters,
19@ arer vs. ;arvey, 181 H.!., 081 Mitchell vs. 5ur-an, 18 H.!., 02 otiller vs. "o-ingues,1 H.!., 28 Moore vs. !teinach, 127 H.!., 7 Arndt vs. >riggs, 10 H.!., 16 A-erican and
Co-pany vs. Feiss, 219 H.!., 07.%
The state possesses not only the po+er to deter-ine ho+ title to real estate -ay e acuired and
proved, ut it is also +ithin its legislative co-petency to estalish the -ethod of procedure.
#A-erican and Co. vs. Feiss, 219 H.!., 07 ertrand vs. Taylor, 87 =ll., 2@ Title, "ocu-ent, etc.,
Co-pany vs. Perrigan, 1@ Cal., 28, @ *erins vs. aeha-, 86 Cal., @8.%
/ational an vs. Cleveland, 117 >a., 98 *eople vs. !i-on, 176 =ll., 16@ 68 A-. !t. &ep., 17@
Kuarl vs. Aett, 12 =nd., 2 @2 A-. &ep., 662 &uppinvs. Mcaughlin, 122 =o+a, 0Eoung vs. Hpshur, 02 a. An., 62 21 A-. !t. &ep., 81 Tyler vs. (udges, 17@ Mass., 71 @1 .&.A.,
@71 @7 .&.A., 297 &ohrer vs. Ader, 120 Mo., 20 !andiford vs. To+n of ;e-pstead, 9 /.E. !upp.,
76, 79, 97 Arndt vs. >riggs, 10 H.!., 16.%
=f the state can provide for sustituted service for the purpose of uieting title to real estate against
an unno+n resident, it -ay provide a reasonale -ethod for securing sustituted services against
residents. The po+er of the state to provide -ethods of uieting title should not e li-ited to no+n
persons. =n order to -ae such a la+ valuale and effective to its fullest etent, it is necessary that it
e -ade to operate on all interest and persons no+n or unno+n.
Mr. (ustice ;ol-es, in the case of Tyler vs. (udges #17@ Mass., 71% in discussing this uestion, said)$=f it #the procedure% does not satisfy the Constitution, a 'udicial proceeding to clear titles against all
the +orld hardly is possile, for the very -eaning of such a proceeding is to get rid of unno+n as
+ell as no+n clai-s L indeed certainly against the unno+n -ay e said to e its chief end L and
unno+n clai-s cannot e dealt +ith y personal service upon the clai-ant.$
Mr. Chief (ustice hite of the !upre-e Court of the Hnited !tates, in the case of the A-erican and
Co-pany vs.Feiss #219 H. !., 07% said) $To argue that the provisions of the statute are repugnant to
the due process clause #of the Constitution% ecause a case -ay e conceived +here rights in and
to property +ould e adversely affected +ithout notice eing actually conveyed y the proceedings is
in effect to deny the po+er of the state to deal +ith the su'ect. The criterion is not the possiility of
conceivale in'ury, ut the 'ust and reasonale character of the reuire-ents, having reference tothe su'ect +ith +hich the statute deals.$
The court of appeals of the !tate of /e+ Eor, in the case of #n re 4-pire City an #18 /.E., 199,
21@% in speaing of the right of the state to prescrie in suitale cases for sustituted service, said)
$3arious prudential regulations are -ade +ith respect to these re-edies y it -ay possily happen,
not+ithstanding all these precautions, that a citien +ho o+es nothing, and has done none of the
acts -entioned in the statutes, -ay e deprived of his estate +ithout any actual no+ledge of the
process y +hich it has een taen fro- hi-. =f +e hold, as +e -ust, in order to sustain this
legislation, that the Constitution does not positively reuire personal notice in order to constitute a
legal proceedings due process of la+, it then elongs to the legislature to deter-ine in the particular
instance +hether the case calls for this ind of eceptional legislation, and +hat -anner ofconstructive notice shall e sufficient to reasonaly apprise the party proceeded against of the egal
steps +hich are taen against hi-. #A-erican and Co-pany vs. Feiss, 219 H.!., 07 Title,
are cited in that case, it is difficult to understand ho+ it is authority in support of the contention of the
appellants here. The facts in that case are as follo+s)
Feiss, on the 22d of August, 196, co--enced an action in the superior court of the country !an
5rancisco, alleging in sustance that on the 18th and 19th days of April, 196, a -aterial part of the
pulic records contained in the office of the county recorder of the city and county of !an 5rancisco+as destroyed y fire that on the 18th day of April, 196, and at the ti-e of the filing of the
co-plaint, he +as the o+ner and in the actual and peaceale possession of the parcels of land in
controversy) that his estate, title, interest in and to said parcels of land, and each of the-, +as that
of o+ner in fee si-ple, asolute, free fro- all encu-rances, liens, defect, clai-s or de-ands of
any ind or nature +hatsoever. Hnder these facts the plaintiff, Feiss, prayed that the e ad'udged to
e the o+ner of and entitled to the possession of said parcels of land, and each of the-, +as that of
o+ner in fee si-ple, asolute, free fro- all encu-rance, liens, defects, clai-s or de-ands of any
ind or nature +hatsoever. Hnder these facts the plaintiff, Feiss, prated that he e ad'udged to e
the o+ner of and entitled to the possession of said descried parcels of land in fee si-ple, and that
no one else had any estate, rights, title, interest or clai- in or to the sa-e, or any part thereof, either
legal or euitale, present or future, vested or contingent.
Hpon the presentation of the petition y Feisss, a su--ons +as issued and notice of the pendency
of the action +as pulished in certain ne+spaper, as +as reuired y la+. /otice +as also posted
upon the property, as reuired y the statute. /o one having appeared and opposed the granting of
the petition of the co-plaint, or clai-ed any interest in or lien upon the property descried in the
co-plaint, a default was ordered against all persons, and on the 19th days of "ece-er, 196, a
decree +as entered in favor of Feiss, ad'udging that he +as the o+ner in fee si-ple, asolute, and
entitled to the possession of the land descried in the co-plaint and that no other person had any
right title, interest, or estate in and to the sa-e, or any part thereof, either legal or euitale, present
or future, vested or contingent.
/othing else see-s to have transpired after said decree +as issued in favor of Feiss, until the 26th
day of May, 198, or one year and five -onths after the entry of the decree of the superior court, in
the city and county of !an 5rancisco. <n that date #the 26th of May, 198% an action +as rought in
the Hnited !tates Circuit Court for the /orthern "istrict of California, in +hich the plaintiffs clai-ed
title to the parcels of land, as owners in fee si$ple, asolute, +hich had theretofore een decreed to
Feiss. The plaintiff alleged that the decree issued y the superior court of the city and county of !an
5rancisco +as void and of no force and effect and +as -ade and -aintained +ithout due process of
la+, and tat said superior court , in said action and proceedings never ad any )urisdiction over te
persons olding te title during suc proceedings, and tat said court did not ave or obtain
)urisdiction to divest te rigt, title, interest or estate of plaintiff . The co-plaint alleged that $Feiss
had no right +hatever in said parcels of land, other than his rights of possession and occupation.$The ill further alleged that the plaintiffs had een at all ti-es citiens and residents of California, not
seeing to evade, ut ready to accept service of su--ons and easily reached for that purpose that,
not+ithstanding that fact, no service was $ade upon te$ nor did tey in any way receive notice of
te pendency of te action #Feiss vs. All persons clai-ing any interest in or lien upon the real
property herein descried% nor did tey gain any *nowledge of existence of te decree until $ore
tan a year after its entry . To the co-plaint the defendant, Feiss, de-urred.
Hpon the issue thus presented, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the /inth "istrict certified the
uestion involved to the !upre-e Court of the Hnited !tates. The !upre-e Court of the Hnited
!tates, after a careful analysis of the facts and of the la+, in a very lengthy and instructive opinion
#219 H. !., 07%, decided each of the uestion su-itted y the Circuit Court of Appeals against the
contention of the plaintiff and returned the cause to the court elo+.
The original action y Feiss +as rought to uiet the title to t+o parcels of land for the purpose of
registrating his title to the sa-e under an act of the legislature of the !tate of California, entitled $An
act to provide for the estalish-ent and uieting of title to real property in case of loss or destruction
of pulic records.$ !aid la+ is no+n as the Mc4nerney a+. =t +as intended y said act to provide a
-ethod +herey o+ners in possession of real estate, +here records had een destroyed to such an
etent as to -ae it i-possile to trace a record title, -ight secure a degree in the court +hich +ould
furnish pulic, authenticated evidence of title. The special occasion for the la+ +as the fact that
practically all of the pulic records of title in several counties in the !tate of California had recently
theretofore een destroyed as the result of an earthuae and fire. !aid la+ provided that +henever
the pulic records in the office of the county recorded had een, or shall hereafter e lost or
destroyed, in +hole or in any -aterial part, y flood, fire, or earthuae, any person +ho clai-s anestate of inheritance or have title in, and +ho had y hi-self or his tenants, or other persons holding
under hi-, in actual and peaceale possession any real property in said county, -ay ring and
-aintain an action in re$, against all te world , in the superior court for the county in +hich said real
property is situate, to estalish his title, and to deter$ine all adverse clai$s tereto.
The la+ further provides that an action shall e co--enced y the filing of a verified co-plaint, in
+hich he shall na-e the defendants as $all persons clai-ing any interest in or lien upon the real
property herein descried, or any part thereof.$ ;e +as reuired to give in his co-plaint a particular
description of the property. The la+ provided that upon the filing of the co-plaint, a su--ons or
notice +as reuired to e issued, containing the na-es of the court and the country in +hich the
action +as rought, the na-e of the plaintiff, and a particular description of the property involved,+hich notice +as directed to $all persons clai-ing any interest in or lien upon the real property herein
descried, or any part thereof,$ as defendants.
The la+ further provided that said su--ons or notice should e pulished in a ne+spaper of general
circulation in the county +here the action +as rought, at least once a +ee for a period of t+o
-onths.
The la+ further provided that personal notice should e given to any person clai-ing an interest in
the property or a lien thereon adverse to the plaintiff.
The said la+ further provided that upon the pulication and posting of the su--ons and its serviceupon and -ailing to the person, if any, upon +ho- it is herein directed to e specially served, the
court shall have full and co-plete 'urisdiction over the plaintiff and said property and of the person
and every one clai-ing any estate, right, title, or interest in or to or lien upon said property, or any
part thereof, and shall e dee-ed to have otained the possession and control of said property, for
te purpose of te action, and shall have full and co-plete 'urisdiction to render 'udg-ent therein,
=n the case of the A-erican and Co-pany vs. Feiss, cited and relied upon y the appellants, the
validity of said la+ +as attaced and the legality of the title granted to Feiss +as i-pugned for the
reason that the la+ +as unconstitutional and void, and ecause the plaintiff had not received actual
notice of the application to Feiss to have his title uieted, under said la+. The !upre-e Court of the
Hnited !tates #219 H.!., 07% held, as has een aove indicated, that the la+ +as constitutional and
that a co-pliance +ith the reuire-ents of the notice provided for in said la+ +as sufficient to givethe court 'urisdiction over the res and to enter a valid decree. There see-s to e ut little in the
decision in the case of the A-erican and Co-pany vs. Feiss to support the contention of the
appellants.
Considering that the egislature of the *hilippine =slands had full po+er to adopt the procedure
provided for in Act /o. 096, for the registration of the title of lands and
Considering that the court in the original action follo+ed strictly the procedure adopted y said la+
and
Considering that there is no clai- of fraud, actual or constructive, upon the part of any of the partiesconnected +ith said action, +e are forced to the conclusion that the appellants here are not no+
entitled to have that 'udg-ent or decree of registration and certificate a-ended or set aside.
There re-ains another uestion, ho+ever, +hich the appellants have not discussed and +hich +e
dee- of i-portance. =t is the uestion of the right of the and Court to correct an error of closure in a
plan or of a state-ent contained in a certificate. A plan is prepared and is presented +ith the petition
for the registration of a parcel of land. /o opponents appear. /o opposition is presented to the
registration. All the steps in the procedure reuired y la+ have een taen. The land is registered. =t
is then discovered for the first ti-e that y reason of a +rong direction given to one of the lines in the
plan, said plan +ill not close L that if a +all +ere uilt upon the lines of the plan, one of the four
corners of the +all +ould not -eter. e elieve that an error of the character -ay e corrected ythe court, provided that such correction does not include land not included in the original petition.
Hpon the uestion +hether the a-ended plan #p.2@2, record% included -ore or different lands than
+ere included in the original petition, +e find the follo+ing state-ents -ade y one of the 'udges
+ho ordered said plan a-ended. The state-ents is)
At this stage of the proceedings and on his particular point nothing further is incu-ent upon
the court than to deter-ine the property as it +as ad'udicated in this case.
Therein no ne+ portion +as either added or sutracted, and this court finds that such should
e the holding on this particular point.
e have a further state-ent -ade y one of the 'udges, the ;onorale Charles ;. !-ith, relating to
the sa-e uestion, in an ans+er presented y hi- to a petition for a +rit of prohiition, presented y
so-e the appellants herein, to the !upre-e Court. That petition for a +rit of prohiition involved
practically the sa-e uestion presented y the appellants here no+. Hpon the uestion +hether or
not additional lands had een included in the ne+ plan #p.2@2, record%, (udge !-ith, in ans+ering
for hi-self and his associates #<strand and &o-ualde% said)
&espondents deny that a ne+ dividing line et+een the pre-ises in uestion #pre-ises of
the plaintiff and appellant% +as deter-ined and estalished y an order of the court issued at
the conclusion of said proceedings, ut, on the contrary, respondents charge the truth to e
that the dividing line et+een said properties +as not changed ut si-ply approved and so
indicated upon the record title. 5or instance, the line et+een said properties eginning on
the south side of the 4scolta is eactly at the sa-e point indicated in the original descriptionand approved y the court in other +ords, the pre-ises in uestion of the said Maria del
Consuelo 5elisa &oas y Chuidian have not een enlarged the oundary lines thereof have
not een changed the real descriptions of the properties have een left undistured the
ad'oining land o+ned y the petitioners is undi-inished, ecept possily as to alleged
ease-ents clai-ed to have een created y the pro'ection of so-e of the roots of the
petitioners? uilding over the aforesaid registered property of the said &oas. That -atter is
settled clearly y the provisions of the last paragraph of section 9 of Act /o. 096.$
e called attention aove to the fact that the petitioner alleged that the line A: of her property ran
!., 00 ? ., a distance of 1.8 -eters, +hile the plan acco-panying said petition #see 4hiit A,
page @, ante% -ade said line to run !., 06 ? ., a distance of 1.8 -eters An ea-ination of thecertificate issued to the petitioner #see page 9, ante% also states that the line A: runs !., 06 ? .,
for a distance of 1.8 -eters. The record contains no application +hy the original plan #see 4hiit
A, page @, ante% did not confor- to the description of the land given in the petition. That error, in our
'udg-ent, see-s to have constituted the real difficulty +ith the closure of the plan. Hnder said
conditions +e are of the opinion that the and Court is entirely 'ustified in ordering the plan corrected
for the purposes aove indicated.
There is still another uestion involved in the case, +hich the appellants have not discussed, and
that is the right of Maria del Consuelo 5elisa &oas y Chuidian to have her original certificate of
registration corrected, for the purpose of sho+ing that she +as the o+ner of the uildings located
upon the parcel of land in uestion. =t +ill e re-e-ered that in her petition presented (anuary 12,196, she alleged that she +as the o+ner of the parcel of land in uestion, together +ith
the buildings thereon. /o opposition +as presented. /o o'ection +as -ade to the registration of the
land as descried in her petition. The record sho+s no reason +hy the uildings should have een
o-itted in the certificate of registration. The o-ission -ust have een an errors. on the part of the
cler. e find that Act /o. 096 contains an epress provision for the correction of such errors.
!ection 112 provides that the registered o+ner -ay, at any ti-e, apply y petition to have corrected
any $error, o-ission, or -istae -ade in entering a certificate, or any -e-orandu- thereon, or on
any duplicate certificate.$ e thin the petition presented y Miss &oas for the correction of such
original certificate +as entirely +ithin her right under the la+. =t -ight e clai-ed, and +e elieve that
the proposition is sustained y la+, that the registration of a parcel of land, unless the record
contains so-ething to the contrary, necessarily includes the uildings and edifices located thereon,even though they are not -entioned. ithout relying upon that proposition of la+, ho+ever, and in
vie+ of the petition of the plaintiff, it is herey ordered that the original certificate e a-ended so as
to include not only the land descried in the original petition, ut the uildings located thereon as
+ell.
ith reference to the petition of the Masonic Te-ple Association of Manila, the record contains no
5irst. That the plaintiffs and the defendant occupy, as o+ners, ad'oining lots in the district of 4r-ita in
the city of Manila.
!econd. That there eists and has eisted a nu-er of years a stone +all et+een the said lots.
!aid +all is located on the lot of the plaintiffs.
Third. That the plaintiffs, on the 2d day of March, 196, presented a petition in the Court of and
&egistration for the registration of their lot. After a consideration of said petition the court, on the 2@th
day of <ctoer, 196, decreed that the title of the plaintiffs should e registered and issued to the-
the original certificate provided for under the torrens syste-. !aid registration and certificateincluded the +all.
5ourth. ater the predecessor of the defendant presented a petition in the Court of and &egistration
for the registration of the lot no+ occupied y hi-. <n the 2@th day of March, 1912, the court
decreed the registration of said title and issued the original certificate provided for under the torrens
syste-. The description of the lot given in the petition of the defendant also included said +all.
5ifth. !everal -onths later #the 1th day of "ece-er, 1912% the plaintiffs discovered that the +all
+hich had een included in the certificate granted to the- had also een included in the certificate
granted to the defendant .They i--ediately presented a petition in the Court of and &egistration for
an ad'ust-ent and correction of the error co--itted y including said +all in the registered title ofeach of said parties. The lo+er court ho+ever, +ithout notice to the defendant, denied said petition
upon the theory that, during the pendency of the petition for the registration of the defendant?s land,
they failed to -ae any o'ection to the registration of said lot, including the +all, in the na-e of the
defendant.
!ith. That the land occupied y t he +all is registered in the na-e of each of the o+ners of the
Hnder these facts, +ho is the o+ner of the +all and the land occupied y it
The decision of the lo+er court is ased upon the theory that the action for the registration of the lot
of the defendant +as a 'udicial proceeding and that the 'udg-ent or decree +as inding upon all
parties +ho did not appear and oppose it. =n other +ords, y reason of the fact that the plaintiffs had
not opposed the registration of that part of the lot on +hich the +all +as situate they had lost it, eventhough it had een theretofore registered in their na-e. >ranting that theory to e correct one, and
granting even that the +all and the land occupied y it, in fact, elonged to the defendant and his
predecessors, then the sa-e theory should e applied to the defendant hi-self. Applying that theory
to hi-, he had already lost +hatever right he had therein, y per-itting the plaintiffs to have the
sa-e registered in their na-e, -ore than si years efore. ;aving thus lost hid right, -ay he e
per-itted to regain it y si-ply including it in a petition for registration The plaintiffs having secured
the registration of their lot, including the +all, +ere they oliged to constantly e on the alert and to
+atch all the proceedings in the land court to see that so-e one else +as not having all, or a portion
of the sa-e, registered =f that uestion is to e ans+ered in the affir-ative, then the +hole sche-e
and purpose of the torrens syste- of land registration -ust fail. The real purpose of that syste- is to
uiet title to land to put a stop forever to any uestion of the legality of the title, ecept clai-s +hich+ere noted at the ti-e of registration, in the certificate, or +hich -ay arise suseuent thereto. That
eing the purpose of the la+, it +ould see- that once a title is registered the o+ner -ay rest secure,
+ithout the necessity of +aiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the $-irador de su casa,$ to
avoid the possiility of losing his land. <f course, it can not e denied that the proceeding for the
registration of land under the torrens syste- is 'udicial #4scueta vs. ."irector of ands, 16 *hil. &ep.,
082%. =t is clothed +ith all the for-s of an action and the result is final and inding upon all the +orld.
=t is an action in re$. #4scueta vs. "irector of ands #supra% >rey Ala vs. "e la Cru, 17 *hil. rep.,
09 &oas vs. 4nriue, 29 *hil. &ep., 1 Tyler vs. (udges, 17@ Mass., @1 A-erican and
Co. vs. Feiss, 219 H.!., 07.%
hile the proceeding is 'udicial, it involves -ore in its conseuences than does an ordinary action. All the +orld are parties, including the govern-ent. After the registration is co-plete and final and
there eists no fraud, there are no innocent third parties +ho -ay clai- an interest. The rights of all
the +orld are foreclosed y the decree of registration. The govern-ent itself assu-es the urden of
giving notice to all parties. To per-it persons +ho are parties in the registration proceeding #and they
are all the +orld% to again litigate the sa-e uestions, and to again cast dout upon the validity of
the registered title, +ould destroy the very purpose and intent of the la+. The registration, under the
torrens syste-, does not give the o+ner any etter title than he had. =f he does not already have a
perfect title, he can not have it registered. 5ee si-ple titles only -ay e registered. The certificate of
registration accu-ulates in open docu-ent a precise and correct state-ent of the eact status of the
fee held y its o+ner. The certificate, in the asence of fraud, is the evidence of title and sho+s
eactly the real interest of its o+ner. The title once registered, +ith very fe+ eceptions, should notthereafter e i-pugned, altered, changed, -odified, enlarged, or di-inished, ecept in so-e direct
proceeding per-itted y la+. <ther+ise all security in registered titles +ould e lost. A registered title
can not e altered, -odified, enlarged, or di-inished in acollateral proceeding and not even y a
direct proceeding, after the lapse of the period prescried y la+.
5or the difficulty involved in the present case the Act #/o. 096% providing for the registration of titles
under the torrens syste- affords us no re-edy. There is no provision in said Act giving the parties
relief under conditions lie the present. There is nothing in the Act +hich indicates +ho should e the
o+ner of land +hich has een registered in the na-e of t+o different persons.
The rule, +e thin, is +ell settled that the decree ordering the registration of a particular parcel of
land is a ar to future litigation over the sa-e et+een the sa-e parties .=n vie+ of the fact that all
the +orld are parties, it -ust follo+ that future litigation over the title is forever arred there can eno persons +ho are not parties to the action. This, +e thin, is the rule, ecept as to rights +hich are
noted in the certificate or +hich arise suseuently, and +ith certain other eceptions +hich need not
e dis-issed at present. A title once registered can not e defeated, even y an adverse, open, and
notorious possession. &egistered title under the torrens syste- can not e defeated y prescription
#section 06, Act /o. 096%. The title, once registered, is notice to the +orld. All persons -ust tae
notice. /o one can plead ignorance of the registration.
The uestion, +ho is the o+ner of land registered in the na-e of t+o different persons, has een
presented to the courts in other 'urisdictions. =n so-e 'urisdictions, +here the $torrens$ syste- has
een adopted, the difficulty has een settled y epress statutory provision. =n others it has een
settled y the courts. ;ogg, in his ecellent discussion of the $Australian Torrens !yste-,$ at page82, says) $The general rule is that in the case of t+o certificates of title, purporting to include the
sa-e land, the earlier in date prevails, +hether the land co-prised in the latter certificate e +holly,
or only in part, co-prised in the earlier certificate. #<elers vs. Merry, 2 K.!.C.&., 19
Miller vs. "avy, 7 /.F.&., 1@@ loyd vs. Myfield, 7 A..T. #3.% 08 !tevens vs. illia-s, 12 3.. &.,
1@2 &egister of Titles, vs. 4sperance and Co., 1 .A.&., 118.%$ ;ogg adds ho+ever that, $if it can
e very clearly ascertained y the ordinary rules of construction relating to +ritten docu-ents, that
the inclusion of the land in the certificate of title of prior date is a -istae, the -istae -ay e
rectified y holding the latter of the t+o certificates of title to e conclusive.$ #!ee ;ogg on the
$Australian torrens !yste-,$ supra, and cases cited. !ee also the ecellent +or of /ilac in his
$Analysis of the Torrens !yste-,$ page 99.% /ilac, in discussing the general uestion, said)
$here t+o certificates purport to include the sa-e land the earlier in date prevails. ... =n successiveregistrations, +here -ore than one certificate is issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in
land, the person clai-ing under the prior certificates is entitled to the estate or interest and that
person is dee-ed to hold under the prior certificate +ho is the holder of, or +hose clai- is derived
directly or indirectly fro- the person +ho +as the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect
thereof. hile the acts in this country do not epressly cover the case of the issue of t+o certificates
for the sa-e land, they provide that a registered o+ner shall hold the title, and the effect of this
undoutedly is that +here t+o certificates purport to include the sa-e registered land, the holder of
the earlier one continues to hold the title$ #p. 27%.
!ection 8 of Act /o. 096, provides that $=t #the decree of registration% shall e conclusive upon and
against all persons, including the =nsular >overn-ent and all the ranches thereof, +hether-entioned y na-e in the application, notice, or citation, or included in the general description $To all
+ho- it -ay concern.$ !uch decree shall not e opened y reason of the asence, infancy, or other
disaility of any person affected therey, nor y any proceeding in any court for reversing 'udg-ents
or decrees su'ect, ho+ever, to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest
therein y decree of registration otained y fraud to file in the Court of and &egistration a petition
for revie+ +ithin one year after entry of the decree #of registration%, provided no innocent purchaser
=t +ill e noted, fro- said section, that the $decree of registration$ shall not e opened,
for any reason, in any court, except for fraud, and not even for fraud, after the lapse of one year . =f
then the decree of registration can not e opened for any reason, ecept for fraud, in a direct
proceeding for that purpose, -ay such decree e opened or set aside in a collateral proceeding y
including a portion of the land in a suseuent certificate or decree of registration e do not
elieve the la+ conte-plated that a person could e deprived of his registered title in that +ay.
e have in this 'urisdiction a general statutory provision +hich governs the right of the o+nership of
land +hen the sa-e is registered in the ordinary registry in the na-e of t+o persons. Article 107 of
the Civil Code provides, a-ong other things, that +hen one piece of real property had een sold to
t+o different persons it shall elong to the person acuiring it, +ho first inscries it in the registry.
This rule, of course, presupposes that each of the vendees or purchasers has acuired title to the
land. The real o+nership in such a case depends upon priority of registration. hile +e do not no+
decide that the general provisions of the Civil Code are applicale to the and &egistration Act, even
though +e see no o'ection thereto, yet +e thin, in the asence of other epress provisions, they
should have a persuasive influence in adopting a rule for governing the effect of a doule registration
under said Act. Adopting the rule +hich +e elieve to e -ore in consonance +ith the purposes andthe real intent of the torrens syste-, +e are of the opinion and so decree that in case land has een
registered under the and &egistration Act in the na-e of t+o different persons, the earlier in date
shall prevail.
=n reaching the aove conclusion, +e have not overlooed the forceful argu-ent of the appellee. ;e
says, a-ong other things $hen *rieto et al. +ere served +ith notice of the application of Teus #the
predecessor of the defendant% they eca-e defendants in a proceeding +herein he, Teus, +as
seeing to foreclose their right, and that of orders, to the parcel of land descried in his application.
Through their failure to appear and contest his right thereto, and the suseuent entry of a default
'udg-ent against the-, they eca-e irrevocaly ound y the decree ad'udicating such land to
Teus. They had their day in court and can not set up their o+n o-ission as ground for i-pugning thevalidity of a 'udg-ent duly entered y a court of co-petent 'urisdiction. To decide other+ise +ould
e to hold that lands +ith torrens titles are aove the la+ and eyond the 'urisdiction of the courts$.
As +as said aove, the pri-ary and funda-ental purpose of the torrens syste- is to uiet title. =f the
holder of a certificate cannot rest secure in this registered title then the purpose of the la+ is
defeated. =f those dealing +ith registered land cannot rely upon the certificate, then nothing has een
gained y the registration and the epense incurred therey has een in vain. =f the holder -ay lose
a strip of his registered land y the -ethod adopted in the present case, he -ay lose it all. !uppose
+ithin the si years +hich elapsed after the plaintiff had secured their title, they had -ortgaged or
sold their right, +hat +ould e the position or right of the -ortgagee or vendee That -istaes are
ound to occur cannot e denied, and so-eti-es the da-age done therey is irreparale. =t is theduty of the courts to ad'ust the rights of the parties under such circu-stances so as to -ini-ie such
da-ages, taing into consideration al of the conditions and the diligence of the respective parties to
avoid the-. =n the present case, the appellee +as the first negligent #granting that he +as the real
o+ner, and if he +as not the real o+ner he can not co-plain% in not opposing the registration in the
na-e of the appellants. ;e +as a party:defendant in an action for the registration of the lot in
uestion, in the na-e of the appellants, in 196. $Through his failure to appear and to oppose such
registration, and the suseuent entry of a default 'udg-ent against hi-, he eca-e irrevocaly
ound y the decree ad'udicating such land to the appellants. ;e had his day in court and should not
e per-itted to set up his o+n o-issions as the ground for i-pugning the validity of a 'udg-ent duly
entered y a court of co-petent 'urisdiction.$ >ranting that he +as the o+ner of the land upon +hich
the +all is located, his failure to oppose the registration of the sa-e in the na-e of the appellants, in
the asence of fraud, forever closes his -outh against i-pugning the validity of that 'udg-ent. There
is no -ore reason +hy the doctrine invoed y the appellee should e applied to the appellants thanto hi-.
e have decided, in case of doule registration under the and &egistration Act, that the o+ner of
the earliest certificate is the o+ner of the land. That is the rule et+een original parties. May this rule
e applied to successive vendees of the o+ners of such certificates !uppose that one or the other
of the parties, efore the error is discovered, transfers his original certificate to an $innocent
purchaser.$ The general rule is that the vendee of land has no greater right, title, or interest than his
vendor that he acuires the right +hich his vendor had, only. Hnder that rule the vendee of the
earlier certificate +ould e the o+ner as against the vendee of the o+ner of the later certificate.
e find statutory provisions +hich, upon first reading, see- to cast so-e dout upon the rule thatthe vendee acuires the interest of the vendor only. !ections 8, @@, and 112 of Act /o. 096 indicate
that the vendee -ay acuire rights and e protected against defenses +hich the vendor +ould not.
!aid sections spea of availale rights in favor of third parties +hich are cut off y virtue of the sale
of the land to an $innocent purchaser.$ That is to say, persons +ho had had a right or interest in land
+rongfully included in an original certificate +ould e unale to enforce such rights against an
$innocent purchaser,$ y virtue of the provisions of said sections. =n the present case Teus had his
land, including the +all, registered in his na-e. ;e suseuently sold the sa-e to the appellee. =s
the appellee an $innocent purchaser,$ as that phrase is used in said sections May those +ho have
een deprived of their land y reason of a -istae in the original certificate in favor of Teus e
deprived of their right to the sa-e, y virtue of the sale y hi- to the appellee !uppose the
appellants had sold their lot, including the +all, to an $innocent purchaser,$ +ould such purchaser eincluded in the phrase $innocent purchaser,$ as the sa-e is used in said sections Hnder these
ea-ples there +ould e t+o innocent purchasers of the sa-e land, is said sections are to e
applied .hich of the t+o innocent purchasers, if they are oth to e regarded as innocent
purchasers, should e protected under the provisions of said sections These uestions indicate the
difficulty +ith +hich +e are -et in giving -eaning and effect to the phrase $innocent purchaser,$ in
said sections.
May the purchaser of land +hich has een included in a $second original certificate$ ever e
regarded as an $innocent purchaser,$ as against the rights or interest of the o+ner of the first original
certificate, his heirs, assigns, or vendee The first original certificate is recorded in the pulic
registry. =t is never issued until it is recorded. The record notice to all the +orld. All persons arecharged +ith the no+ledge of +hat it contains. All persons dealing +ith the land so recorded, or any
portion of it, -ust e charged +ith notice of +hatever it contains. The purchaser is charged +ith
notice of every fact sho+n y the record and is presu-ed to no+ every fact +hich the record
discloses .This rule is so +ell estalished that it is scarcely necessary to cite authorities in its support
#/orth+estern /ational an vs. 5ree-an, 171 H.!., 62, 629 "elvin on &eal 4state, sections 71,
hen a conveyance has een properly recorded such record is constructive notice of its contents
and all interests, legal and euitale, included therein. #>randin vs. Anderson, 1@ <hio !tate, 286,
289 <rvis vs. /e+ell, 17 Conn., 97 uchanan vs. =ntentional an, 78 =ll., @ Eoungs vs. ilson,
27 /.E., @1 McCae vs. >rey, 2 Cal., @9 Montefiore vs. ro+ne, 7 ;ouse of ords Cases, 01.%
Hnder the rule of notice, it is presu-ed that the purchaser has ea-ined every instru-ent of recordaffecting the title. !uch presu-ption is irreutale. ;e is charged +ith notice of every fact sho+n y
the record and is presu-ed to no+ every fact +hich an ea-ination of the record +ould have
disclosed. This presu-ption cannot e overco-e y proof of innocence or good faith. <ther+ise the
very purpose and o'ect of the la+ reuiring a record +ould e destroyed. !uch presu-ption cannot
e defeated y proof of +ant of no+ledge of +hat the record contains any -ore than one -ay e
per-itted to sho+ that he +as ignorant of the provisions of the la+. The rule that all persons -ust
tae notice of the facts +hich the pulic record contains is a rule of la+. The rule -ust e asolute.
Any variation +ould lead to endless confusion and useless litigation.
hile there is no statutory provision in force here reuiring that original deeds of conveyance of real
property e recorded, yet there is a rule reuiring -ortgages to e recorded. #Arts. 187@ and 66 ofthe Civil Code.% The record of a -ortgage is indispensale to its validity. #Art .187@.% =n the face of
that statute +ould the courts allo+ a -ortgage to e valid +hich had not een recorded, upon the
plea of ignorance of the statutory provision, +hen third parties +ere interested May a purchaser of
land, suseuent to the recorded -ortgage, plead ignorance of its eistence, and y reason of such
ignorance have the land released fro- such lien Could a purchaser of land, after the recorded
-ortgage, e relieved fro- the -ortgage lien y the plea that he +as a bona fide purchaser May
there e a bona fide purchaser of said land, bona fide in the sense that he had no no+ledge of the
eistence of the -ortgage e elieve the rule that all persons -ust tae notice of +hat the pulic
record contains in 'ust as oligatory upon all persons as the rule that all -en -ust no+ the la+ that
no one can plead ignorance of the la+. The fact that all -en no+ the la+ is contrary to the
presu-ption. The conduct of -en, at ti-es, sho+s clearly that they do not no+ the la+. The rule,ho+ever, is -andatory and oligatory, not+ithstanding. =t +ould e 'ust as logical to allo+ the
defense of ignorance of the eistence and contents of a pulic record.
=n vie+, therefore, of the foregoing rules of la+, -ay the purchaser of land fro- the o+ner of the
second original certificate e an $innocent purchaser,$ +hen a part or all of such land had theretofore
een registered in the na-e of another, not the vendor e are of the opinion that said sections 8,
@@, and 112 should not e applied to such purchasers. e do not elieve that the phrase $innocent
purchaser should e applied to such a purchaser. ;e cannot e regarded as an $innocent
purchaser$ ecause of the facts contained in the record of the first original certificate. The rule
should not e applied to the purchaser of a parcel of land the vendor of +hich is not the o+ner of the
original certificate, or his successors. ;e, in nonsense, can e an $innocent purchaser$ of the portionof the land included in another earlier original certificate. The rule of notice of +hat the record
contains precludes the idea of innocence. y reason of the prior registry there cannot e an innocent
purchaser of land included in a prior original certificate and in a na-e other than that of the vendor,
or his successors. =n order to -ini-ie the difficulties +e thin this is the safe rule to estalish. e
elieve the phrase $innocent purchaser,$ used in said sections, should e li-ited only to cases
+here unregistered land has een +rongfully included in a certificate under the torrens syste-.
hen land is once rought under the torrens syste-, the record of the original certificate and all
suseuent transfers thereof is notice to all the +orld. That eing the rule, could Teus even regarded
as the holder in good fifth of that part of the land included in his certificate of the appellants e
thin not. !uppose, for ea-ple, that Teus had never had his lot registered under the torrens
syste-. !uppose he had sold his lot to the appellee and had included in his deed of transfer the very
strip of land no+ in uestion. Could his vendee e regarded as an $innocent purchaser$ of said strip
ould his vendee e an $innocent purchaser$ of said strip Certainly not. The record of the originalcertificate of the appellants precludes the possiility. ;as the appellee gained any right y reason of
the registration of the strip of land in the na-e of his vendor Applying the rule of notice resulting
fro- the record of the title of the appellants, the uestion -ust e ans+ered in the negative. e are
of the opinion that these rules are -ore in har-ony +ith the purpose of Act /o. 096 than the rule
contended for y the appellee. e elieve that the purchaser fro- the o+ner of the later certificate,
and his successors, should e reuired to resort to his vendor for da-ages, in case of a -istae lie
the present, rather than to -olest the holder of the first certificate +ho has een guilty of no
negligence. The holder of the first original certificate and his successors should e per-itted to rest
secure in their title, against one +ho had acuired rights in conflict there+ith and +ho had full and
co-plete no+ledge of their rights. The purchaser of land included in the second original certificate,
y reason of the facts contained in the pulic record and the no+ledge +ith +hich he is chargedand y reason of his negligence, should suffer the loss, if any, resulting fro- such purchase, rather
than he +ho has otained the first certificate and +ho +as innocent of any act of negligence.
The foregoing decision does not solve, nor pretend to solve, all the difficulties resulting fro- doule
registration under the torrens syste- and the suseuent transfer of the land. /either do +e no+
atte-pt to decide the effect of the for-er registration in the ordinary registry upon the registration
under the torrens syste-. e are inclined to the vie+, +ithout deciding it, that the record under the
torrens syste-, supersede all other registries. =f that vie+ is correct then it +ill e sufficient, in
dealing +ith land registered and recorded alone. <nce land is registered and recorded under the
torrens syste-, that record alone can e ea-ined for the purpose of ascertaining the real status of
the title to the land.
=t +ould e seen to a 'ust and euitale rule, +hen t+o persons have acuired eual rights in the
sa-e thing, to hold that the one +ho acuired it first and +ho has co-plied +ith all the reuire-ents
of the la+ should e protected.
=n vie+ of our conclusions, aove stated, the 'udg-ent of the lo+er court should e and is herey
revoed. The record is herey returned to the court no+ having and eercising the 'urisdiction
heretofore eercised y the land court, +ith direction to -ae such orders and decrees in the
pre-ises as -ay correct the error heretofore -ade in including the land in the second original
certificate issued in favor of the predecessor of the appellee, as +ell as in all other duplicate
certificates issued.
ithout any findings as to costs, it is so ordered.
Arellano, %.(., ;orrens, and Araullo, ((., concur.
=n cases of doule or overlapping registration, = a- inclined to agree +ith the reasoning and authority
on +hich it is held in the -a'ority opinion #first% that the original holder of the prior certificate is
entitled to the land as against the original holder of the later certificate, +here there has een no
transfer of title y either party to an innocent purchaser oth, as is sho+n in the -a'ority opinion,
eing at fault in per-itting the doule registration to tae place #second% that an innocent purchaserclai-ing under the prior certificate is entitled to the land as against the original holder of the later
certificate, and also as against innocent purchasers fro- the holder of the later certificate the
innocent purchaser eing in no +ise at fault in connection +ith the issuance of the later certificate.
ut = a- of opinion that neither the authorities cited, nor the reasoning of the -a'ority opinion
sustains the proposition that the original holder of the prior certificate is entitled to the land as
against an innocent purchaser fro- the holder of the later certificate.
As to the tet:oo authorities cited in the -a'ority opinion, it is sufficient to say that the rules laid
do+n y oth ;ogg and /ilac are -ere general rules, ad-ittedly su'ect to eception, and of
course of no inding force or authority +here the reasoning upon +hich these rules are ased isapplicale to the facts developed in a particular case.
=n its last analysis the general rule laid do+n in the -a'ority opinion rests upon the proposition set
forth in the last page of the opinion +herein it is said that $it +ould see- to e a 'ust and euitale
rule, +hen t+o persons have acuired eual rights in the sa-e thing, to hold that the one +ho
acuired it first and +ho has co-plied +ith all the reuire-ents of the la+ should e protected.$ The
rule, as applied to the -atter in hand, -ay e stated as follo+s) =t +ould see- to e a 'ust and
euitale rule +hen t+o persons have acuired separate and independent registered titles to the
sa-e land, under the and &egistration Act, to hold that the one +ho first acuired registered title
and +ho has co-plied +ith all the reuire-ents of the la+ in that regard should e protected, in the
asence of any epress statutory provision to the contrary.
Thus stated = have no uarrel +ith the doctrine as a state-ent of the general rule to e applied in
cases of doule or overlapping registration under the and &egistration Act for it is true as stated in
the -a'ority opinion that in the ad'udication and registration of titles y the Courts of and
&egistration $-istaes are ound to occur, and so-eti-es the da-age done therey is irreparale$
and that in the asence of statutory provisions covering such cases, $it is the duty of the courts to
ad'ust the rights of the parties, under such circu-stances, so as to -ini-ie such da-ages, taing
into consideration all of the conditions, and the diligence of the respective parties to avoid the-.$
ut lie -ost such general rules, it has its eceptions and should not e applied in a case +herein
the reasons on +hich it is ased do not eist, or in cases +herein still -ore forceful reasons de-and
the application of a contrary rule.
The general rule relied upon in the -a'ority opinion is a -ere application of a +ell settled euity rule
that) $here conflicting euities are other+ise eual in -erit, that +hich first occurred +ill e given
the preference.$ ut it is universally laid do+n y all the courts +hich have had occasion to apply this
euity rule that $it should e the last test resorted to,$ and that $it never prevails +hen any other
euitale ground for preference eists.$ #See 19 Cent. "ig., tit. 4uity, par. 181 and -ay cases cited
in 16 Cyc., 19, note @7.% =t follo+s that the general rules, that in cases of doule or overlapping
registration the earlier certificate should e protected, ought not to prevail so as to deprive an
innocent purchaser under the later certificate of his title of the earlier certificate contriuted to the
issuance of the later certificate. ;ence the holder of the earlier certificate of title should not e heard
to invoe theC)ust and e'uitable ruleC as laid do+n in the -a'ority opinion, in order to have his o+ntitle protected and the title of an innocent purchaser of a later certificate cancelled or annulled, in any
case +herein it appears that the holder of the later certificate +as +holly +ithout fault, +hile the
holder of the issuance of the later certificate, in that he -ight have prevented its issuance y -erely
entering his appearance in court in response to la+ful su--ons personally served upon hi- in the
course of the proceedings for the issuance of the second certificate, and pleading his superior rights
under the earlier certificate, instead of eeping silent and y his silence per-itting a default 'udg-ent
to e entered against hi- ad'udicating title in favor of the second applicant.
The -a'ority opinion clearly recognies the soundness of the principles = a- contending for y
reasoning #+ith +hich = a- inclined to agree% +herey it undertaes to de-onstrate that as et+een
the original holders of the doule or overlapping registration the general rule shouldprevail, because oth such original parties -ust held to have een fault and, their euities eing
eual, preference should e given to the earlier title.
The -a'ority opinion further recognies the soundness of -y contention y the reasoning +herey it
undertaes to sustain the application of the general rule in favor of the original holder of the earlier
certificate against purchasers fro- the original holder of the later certificate, y an atte-pt to
de-onstrate that such purchasers can in no event e held to e innocent purcasers< ecause, as it
is said, negligence -ay and should al+ays e i-puted to such a purchaser, so that in no event can
he clai- to e +ithout fault +hen it appears that the lands purchased y hi- fro- the holder of a
duly registered certificate of title are included +ithin the ounds of the lands descried in a certificate
of title of an earlier date.
At considerale length the -a'ority opinion #in reliance upon the general rule laid do+n under the
various syste-s of land registration, other than those ased on the torrens syste-% insists that a
purchaser of land land duly registered in the and &egistration Court, is charged +ith notice of the
contents of each and every one of the thousands and tens of thousands of certificates of registry on
file in the land registry office, so that negligence-ay e i$puted to hi- if he does not ascertain that
all or any part of the land purchased y hi- is included +ithin the oundary lines of any one of the
thousands or tens of thousands of tracts of land +hose original registry ears an earlier date than
the date of the original registry of the land purchased y hi-. =t is contended that he cannot clai- to
e +ithout fault should he uy such land ecause, as it is said, it +as possile for hi- to discover
that the land purchased y hi- had een -ade the su'ect of doule or overlapping registration y a
co-parison of the description and oundary lines of the thousands of tracts and parcels of land to e
found in the land registry office.
ut such ruling goes far to defeat one of the principal o'ects sought to e attained y the
introduction and adoption of the so:called torrens syste- for the registration of land. The avo+ed
intent of that syste- of land registration is to relieve the purchase of registered lands fro- the
necessity of looing farther than the certificate of title of the vendor in order that he -ay rest secure
as to the validity of the title to the lands conveyed to hi-. And yet it is said in the -a'ority opinion that
he is carged wit notice of the contents of every other certificate of title in the office of the registrar
so that his failure to acuaint hi-self +ith its contents $ay be i$puted to i$ as negligence.
=f the rule announced in the -a'ority opinion is to prevail, the ne+ syste- of land registration, instead
of -aing transfers of real estate si-ple, ependitious and secure, and instead of avoiding thenecessity for epensive and ofti-es uncertain searches of the land record and registries, in order to
ascertain the true condition of the title efore purchase, +ill, in -any instances, add to the laor,
epense and uncertainty of any atte-pt y a purchaser to satisfy hi-self as to the validity of the title
to lands purchased y hi-.
As = have said efore, one of the principal o'ects, if not the principal o'ect, of the torrens syste- of
land registration upon +hich our and &egistration Act is avo+edly -odelled is to facilitate the
transfer of real estate. To that end the egislature undertaes to relieve prospective purchasers and
all others dealing in registered lands fro- the necessity of looing farther than the certificate of title
to such lands furnished y the Court of and &egistration, and = cannot, therefore, give -y consent
to a ruling +hich charges a purchaser or -ortgage of registered lands +ith notice of the contents ofevery other certificate of title in the land registry, so that negligence and fault -ay e i-puted to hi-
should he e eposed to loss or da-ages as a result of the lac of such no+ledge.
!uppose a prospective purchaser of lands registered under the and &egistration Act desires to
avoid the i-putation of negligence in the event that, unno+n to hi-, such lands have een -ade
the su'ect of doule or overlapping registration, +hat course should he pursue hat -easures
should he adopt in order to search out the infor-ation +ith notice of +hich he is charged There are
no indees to guide hi- nor is there anything in the record or the certificate of title of the land he
proposes to uy +hich necessarily or even +ith reasonale proaility +ill furnish hi- a clue as to
the fact of the eistence of such doule or overlapping registration. =ndeed the only course open to
hi-, if he desires to assure hi-self against the possiility of doule or overlapping registration,+ould even see- to e a careful, laorious and etensive co-parison of the registered oundary
lines contained in the certificate of title of the tract of land he proposes to uy +ith those contained in
all the earlier certificates of title to e found in the land registry. Assuredly it +as never the intention
of the author of the ne+ and &egistration Act to i-pose such a urden on a purchaser of duly
registered real estate, under penalty that a lac of the no+ledge +hich -ight thus e acuired -ay
e i-puted to hi- y this court as negligence in ruling upon the respective euities of the holders of
lands +hich have een the su'ect of doule or overlapping registration.
<n the other hand, = thin that negligence and fault -ay fairly e i-puted to a holder of a registered
certificate of title +ho stood supinely y and let a default 'udg-ent e entered against hi-,
ad'udicating all or any part of his registered lands to another applicant, if it appears that he +as
served +ith notice or had actual notice of the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of and
&egistration +herein such default 'udg-ent +as entered.
The o+ner of land +ho en'oys the enefits secured to hi- y its registry in the Court of and
&egistration -ay reasonaly e reuired to appear and defend his title +hen he has actual notice
that proceedings are pending in that court +herein another applicant, clai-ing the land as his o+n, is
seeing to secure its registry in his na-e. All that is necessary for hi- to do is to enter his
appearance in those proceedings, invite the court?s attention to the certificate of title registered in his
na-e, and thus, at the cost of the applicant, avoid all the da-age and inconvenience flo+ing fro-
the doule or overlapping registration of the land in uestion. There is nothing in the ne+ syste- of
land registration +hich see-s to render it either epedient or necessary to relieve a holder of a
registered title of the duty of appearing and defending that title, +hen he has actual notice that it is
eing attaced in a court of co-petent 'urisdiction, and if, as a result of his neglect or failure so to
do, his lands eco-e su'ect to doule or overlapping registration, he should not e per-itted tosu'ect an innocent purchaser, holding under the later certificate, to all the loss and da-age
resulting fro- the doule or overlapping registration, +hile he goes scot free and holds the land
under a -anifest -isapplication of the euitale rule that $+here conflicting euities are other+ise
eual in -erit, that +hich first accrued +ill e given the preference.$ =t is only +here oth or neither
of the parties are at fault that the rule is properly applicale as et+een opposing clai-ants under an
earlier and a later certificate of registry to the sa-e land.
<f course all that is said in the riefs of counsel and the -a'ority opinion as to the right of the holder
of a certificate to rest secure in his registered title so that those dealing +ith registered lands can
confidently rely upon registry certificates thereto is eually forceful y +ay of argu-ent in favor of the
holder of one or the other certificate in case of doule or overlapping registration. The prole- is todeter-ine +hich of the certificate holders is entitled to the land. The decision of that uestion in favor
of either one -ust necessarily have the effect of destroying the value of the registered title of the
other and to that etent shaing the pulic confidence in the value of the +hole syste- for the
registration of lands. ut, in the language of the -a'ority opinion, $that -istaes are ound to occur
cannot e denied and so-eti-es the da-age done therey is irreparale. =t is the duty of the courts
to ad'ust the rights of the parties under such circu-stances so as to -ini-ie the da-ages, taing
into consideration all the conditions and the diligence of the respective parties to avoid the-.$ lawpil.net
=t +ill e oserved that = li-it the eception to the general euitale rule, as laid do+n in the -a'ority
opinion, to case +herein the holder of the earlier certificate of title has actual notice of the pendency
of the proceedings in the course of +hich the latter certificate of title +as issued, or to cases in +hichhe has received personal notice of the pendency of those proceedings. Hnless he has actual notice
of the pendency of such proceedings = readily agree +ith the reasoning of the -a'ority opinion so far
as it holds that negligence, culpale negligence, should not e i-puted to hi- for failure to appear
and defend his title so as to defeat his right to the enefit of the euitale rule. =t is true that the order
of pulication in such cases having een duly co-plied +ith, all the +orld is charged +ith notice
thereof, ut it does not necessarily follo+ that, in the asence of actual notice, culpale negligence in
per-itting a default 'udg-ent to e entered against hi- -ay e i-puted to the holder of the earlier
certificate so as to defeat his right to the land under the euitale rule favoring the earlier certificate.
!uch a holding +ould have the effect #to uote the language of the -a'ority opinion% of reuiring the
holder of a certificate of title to +ait indefinitely $in the portals of the court$ and to sit in the C$irador
de su casaC in order to avoid the possiility of losing his lands and = agree +ith the +riter of the
-a'ority opinion that to do so +ould place an unreasonale urden on the holders of such certificate,
+hich +as not conte-plated y the authors of the and &egistration Act. ut no unreasonaleurden is placed upon the holder of a registered title y a rule +hich i-putes culpale negligence to
hi- +hen he sits supinely y and lets a 'udg-ent in default e entered against hi- ad'udicating title
to his lands in favor of another applicant, despite the fact that he has actual no+ledge of the
pendency of the proceedings in +hich such 'udg-ent is entered and despite the fact that he has
een personally served +ith su--ons to appear and default his title.
$Taing into consideration all of the conditions and the diligence of the respective parties,$ it see-s
to -e that there is no $euality in -erit$ et+een the conflicting euities set up y an innocent
purchaser +ho acuires title to the land under a registered certificate, and the holder of an earlier
certificate +ho per-itted a default 'udg-ent to e entered against hi-, despite actual notice of the
pendency of the proceedings in the course of +hich the later certificate +as issued.
= a- convinced, further-ore, that aside fro- the superior euities of the innocent purchaser in cases
such as that no+ under discussion, there are strong reasons of convenience and pulic policy +hich
-ilitate in favor of the recognition of his title rather than that of the holder of the earlier title.
<ne ruling eposes all persons purchasing or dealing in registered lands to unno+n, unspecified
and uncertain dangers, to guard against +hich all such persons +ill e put to additional cost,
annoyance and laor on every occasion +hen any transaction is had +ith regard to such lands
+hile the other ruling tends to eli-inate conseuences so directly adverse to the purpose and o'ect
for +hich the land registration la+ +as enacted, and i-poses no urden upon any holder of a
certificate of registered lands other than that of defending his title on those rare, definite and specificoccasions +herein he has actual notice that his title is eing challenged in a Court of and
&egistration, a proceeding in +hich the cost and epense is reduced to the -ini-u- y the
conclusive character of his certificate of title in support of his clai- of o+nership. 5urther-ore,
'udg-ent against the innocent purchaser and in favor of the holder of the earlier certificate in a case
such as that under consideration -ust inevitaly tend to increase the danger of doule or
overlapping registrations y encouraging holders of registered titles, negligently or fraudulently and
conclusively, to per-it default 'udg-ents to e entered against the- ad'udicating title to all or a part
of their registered lands in favor of other applicants, despite actual notice of the pendency of 'udicial
proceedings had for that purpose, and this, +ithout adding in any appreciale degree to the security
of thir titles, and -erely to save the- the very slight troule or inconvenience incident to an entry of
appearance in the court in +hich their o+n titles +ere secured, and inviting attention to the fact thattheir right, title and o+nership in the lands in uestions has already een conclusively ad'udicated.
The cases +herein there is a practical possiility of doule or overlapping registration +ithout actual
notice to the holder of the earlier certificate -ust in the very nature of things to e so rare as to e
practically negligile. "oule or overlapping registration al-ost invarialy occurs in relation to lands
held y ad'oining occupants or clai-ants. =t is difficult to conceive of a case +herein doule
registration can tae place, in the asence of fraud, +ithout personal service of notice of the
pendency of the proceedings upon the holder of the earlier certificate, the statute reuiring such
notice to e served upon the o+ner or occupant of all lands ad'oining those for +hich application for
registration is -ade and the cases +herein an ad'oining land o+ner can, even y the use of fraud,
conduct proceedings for the registration of his land to a successful conclusion +ithout actual notice
to the ad'oining property o+ners -ust e rare indeed.
=n the case at ar the defendant purchased the land in uestion fro- the original holder of a
certificate of title issued y the Court of and &egistration, relying upon the records of the Court of
and &egistration +ith reference thereto and +ith no no+ledge that any part of the land thus
purchased +as included in an earlier certificate of title issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, the holder
of the earlier certificate of title, negligently per-itted a default 'udg-ent to e entered against hi- in
the Court of and &egistration, ad'udicating part of the lands included in his o+n certificate of title in
favor of another applicant, fro- +ho- the defendant in this action acuired title, and this despite the
fact that he +as an ad'oining land o+ner, had actual notice of the pendency of the proceedings and
+as personally served +ith su--ons to appear and defends his rights in the pre-ises. =t see-s to
-e that there can e no reason for dout as to the respective -erits of the euities of the parties,
and further that the 'udg-ent of the -a'ority in favor of the plaintiff +ill inevitaly tend to increase thenu-er of cases +herein registered land o+ners in the future +ill fail to appear and defend their
titles +hen challenged in other proceedings in the Courts of and &egistration, therey enor-ously
increasing the possiility and proaility of loss and da-age to innocent third parties and dealers in
registered lands generally, arising out of erroneous, doule or overlapping registration of lands y
/ffice of te Solicitor General Bdilberto =arot and Solicitor %a$ilo D. uiason for appellee P.
BAU"IS"A ANGELO, J .
This is an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land located in Kueon City containing an area of
aout 0 hectares.
<n <ctoer 11, 19@7, plaintiffs filed an action efore the Court of 5irst =nstance of Kueon City
alleging that for -any years prior to March 2@, 1877 and up to the present they and their ancestors
have een in actual, adverse, open, pulic, eclusive and continuous possession as o+ners of the
land in litigation that they have een cultivating the land and en'oying its fruits eclusively that fro-ti-e i--e-orial up to the year 19@@, they have een paying the land taes thereon that in 19@@
defendant *eople?s ;o-esite G ;ousing Corporation egan asserting title thereto clai-ing that its
Transfer Certificate of Title /o. 1@6 e-races practically all of plaintiff?s property, +hile the other
defendant Hniversity of the *hilippines egan also asserting title thereto clai-ing that its Transfer of
Certificate of Title /o. 9062 covers the re-aining portion that defendants are not innocent
purchasers for value, having had full notice of plaintiff?s actual possession and clai- for o+nership
thereof and that the inclusion of plaintiff?s property +ithin the technical oundaries set out in
defendants? titles +as a clear -istae and that at no ti-e had defendants? predecessors in:interest
eercised do-inical rights over plaintiff?s property.
<n <ctoer 1, 19@7, defendant Hniversity of the *hilippines filed a -otion to dis-iss alleging thatthe co-plaint states no cause of action that it is arred y the statute of li-itations that the court
has no 'urisdiction over the case and that in the event the -otion is not granted, defendant is
separated fro- the case and e i-pleaded in a separate action. To this -otion plaintiffs filed a reply
alleging that the co-plaint on its faces alleges a valid and sufficient cause of action upon +hich the
court could render a valid 'udg-ent. "efendant *eople?s ;o-esite G ;ousing Corporation, on the
other hand, filed a -otion for ill of particulars to +hich plaintiffs filed also a reply. <n /ove-er 2,
19@7, eonila >. de *erucho and (ose *eRaranda filed a -otion for intervention +hich +as lie+ise
opposed y plaintiffs. <n "ece-er 11, 19@7, the trial court issued an order dis-issing the
co-plaint on the ground of lac of cause of action and that it is already arred y the statute of
li-itations, leaving unresolved the other points raised in the pleadings for eing unnecessary. 5ro-
this order plaintiffs too the present appeal.
Appellants contend that the lo+er court erred in dis-issing the co-plaint on the ground of lac of
sufficient cause of action for the reason that on its face said co-plaint alleges sufficient facts on
+hich a valid 'udg-ent could e rendered against defendants. Thus, it is clai-ed that the co-plaint
alleges the follo+ing facts) that plaintiffs are the sole heirs of 4ladio Tiurcio +ho died intestate in
191 that upon his death 4ladio Tiurcio left to plaintiffs as his sole heirs a tract of land located in
Kueon City that said plaintiffs have al+ays een actual, open, notorious and eclusive possession
of the land as o+ners pro indiviso that so-eti-e in 19@@ defendants egan asserting title to the
land clai-ing that the sa-e is e-raced and covered y their respective certificates of title that
defendants acuired their respective titles +ith full notice of the actual possession and clai- of
o+nership of plaintiffs, and as such they cannot e considered innocent purchasers for value.
=t appears, ho+ever, that the land in uestion has een placed under the operation of the Torrenssyste- since 1910 +hen it has een originally registered in the na-e of defendant?s predecessor:in:
interest. =t further appears that so-eti-e in 19@@ defendant *eople?s ;o-esite G ;ousing
Corporation acuired fro- the original o+ner a parcel of land e-racing practically all of plaintiff?s
property for +hich Transfer Certificate of Title /o. 1@6 +as issued in its favor, +hile defendant
Hniversity of the *hilippines lie+ise acuired fro- the sa-e o+ner another portion of the land
+hich e-races the re-ainder of the property for +hich Transfer Certificate of Title /o. 9062 +as
issued in its favor. =t is therefore, clear that the land in uestion has een registers in the na-e of
defendant?s predecessor:in:inters since 1910 under the Torren?s syste- and that not+ithstanding
+hat they no+ clai- that the original title laced the essential reuire-ents prescried y la+ for
their validity, they have never taen any step to nullify said title until 19@7 +hen they instituted the
present action. =n other +ords, they allo+ed a period of 0 years efore they +oe up to invoe +hatthey no+ clai- to e erroneous +hen the court decreed in 1910 the registration of the land in the
na-e of defendant?s predecessor:in:interest. 4vidently, this cannot e done for under our la+ and
'urisprudence, a decree of registration can only e set aside +ithin one year after entry on the
ground of fraud provided no innocent purchaser for value has acuired the property #!ection 8, Act
/o. 096 Apurado vs. Apurado, 26 *hil., @81 !al-on vs. acando, 0 <ff. >a., 1th !upp. 167
&ivera vs.Moran, 08 *hil., 86%.
<n the other hand, our la+ is clear that upon the epiration of the one:year period +ithin to revie+
the decree of registration, the decree as +ell as the title issued in pursuance thereof eco-es
incontrovertile #!ection 8 Act /o. 096%. The purpose of the la+ in li-iting to one year the period
+ithin +hich the decree -ay e revie+ed is to put a li-it to the ti-e +ithin +hich a clai-ant -ay asfor its revocation. =f after title to property is decreed an action -ay e instituted eyond the one:year
period to set aside the decree, the o'ect of the Torrens syste- +hich is to guarantee the
indefeasiility of the Title +ould e defeated #Caanos vs. &egister of "eeds, 0 *hil., @2%.
*laintiffs lie+ise contend that since the co-plaint alleges that defendants acuired their respective
titles +ith full notice of the actual possession and clai- of o+nership of plaintiffs +ith respect to the
land in uestion, it is error to dis-iss the co-plaint for such aver-ent is sufficient to estalish a
cause of action against defendants. This contention overloos the fact that the land in uestion is
covered y Torrens title. Thus, it appears that defendant *eople?s ;o-esite G ;ousing Corporation
ought the portion of the property in uestion fro- its predecessor:in:interest so-eti-e in 19@@ for
+hich Transfer Certificate of Title /o. 1@6 +as issued in its favor. There is nothing in the co-plaintto sho+ that +hen it acuired the property said defendant ne+ of any defect in the title appearing
on its face in the for- of any lien or encu-rance. The sa-e thing is true +ith regard to defendant
Hniversity of the *hilippines. =t lie+ise acuired the portion of the property on uestion so-eti-e in
19@@ fro- its predecessor:in:interest for +hich Transfer Certificate of Title /o. 9062 +as issued in its
favor. There is also nothing in the co-plaint to sho+ that +hen it acuired the property it ne+ of any
defect in the title appealing on its face in the for- of any lien or incu-race. !aid defendants are
therefore, presu-ed to e purchasers for value and in good faith and as such are entitled to
protection under the la+.
The foregoing finds support in the follo+ing +ell:settled principle) $A person dealing +ith registered
land is not reuired to go ehind the register to deter-ine the condition of the property. ;e is only
charged +ith notice of the urdens on the property +hich are noted on the face of the register or thecertificate of title. To reuire hi- to do -ore is to defeat one of the pri-ary o'ects of the Torrens
!yste-.$ #illia- ;. Anderson vs. >arcia, 60 *hil., 6 Castillo vs. !ian, 1@ *hil., 622
*araiso vs. Ca-on, supra, p. 187, 19@9%.
Assu-ing arguendo that plaintiffs? action for reconveyance had not yet prescried as contended,
their right ho+ever to ring the instant action -ay e considered arred y laches for not having
taen the action seasonaly after title to the property had een issued under the Torrens syste-. =t
appears that the property in uestion +as originally registered on May , 1910 and it +as only on
<ctoer 11, 19@7 that appellants asserted their clai- thereto +hen they rought the present action.
=n the recent case of "o-ingo vs. Mayon &ealty Corporation, 12 *hil., 2 @0 <ff. >a., 09@0%,
!epte-er , 19@7 this Court said) $ie Ciriaco Allingag in the previous case, appellants hereincould have raised the issue of the validity of the certificate of title issued to 3alle Cru since 1928,
+hen the foreclosure sale in her favor +as confir-ed. They failed to do so until 18 years after+ards,
and their action #if any% no+ should e held y their o+n laches and negligence.$
Appellants finally clai- that the lo+er court erred in dis-issing the co-plaint on the ground of res
)udicata y taing 'udicial notice of its o+n records in and &egistration Case /o. : invoing in
support of their contention the principle that a court cannot tae 'udicial notice of the contents of the
records of other case even +hen such case had een tried y the sa-e court and not+ithstanding
the facts that oth cases -ay have een tried efore the sa-e 'udge. hile the principle invoed is
considered to e the general rule, the sa-e is not asolute. There are eceptions to this rule. Thus,
as noted y for-er Chief (ustice Moran)
=n so-e instance, courts have taen 'udicial notice of proceedings in other causes, ecause
of their close connection +ith the -atter in the controversy. Thus, in a separate civil action
against the ad-inistrator of an estate arising fro- an appeal against the report of the
co--ittee on clai-s appointed in the ad-inistration proceedings of the said estate, to
deter-ine +hether or not the appeal +as taen on ti-e, the court too 'udicial notice of the
record of the ad-inistration proceedings. Courts have also taen 'udicial notice of previous
cases to deter-ine +hether or not the case pending is a -oot one or +hether or not a
previous ruling is applicale in the case under consideration.
Moreover, appellants? o'ection to the action of the trial court on this -atter is -erely technicalecause they do not dispute the fact that appellant Marcelino Tiurcio, +ho instituted the present
case, is the sa-e person +ho filed the application in and &egistration Case /o. : for the
registration of the sa-e parcel of land +hich application +as denied y the court. =t appears that in
the registration case the oppositors +ere the *eople?s ;o-esite G ;ousing Corporation, Tuason and
Co., and the ureau of ands. Although the Hniversity of the *hilippines +as not an oppositor in that
case, in effect it +as represented y its predecessor:in:interest, Tuason and Co. fro- +hich it
acuired the property. =t -ay therefore e said that in the t+o case there is not only identity of
"RADERS ROAL BAN, petitioner,vs.#ON. $OUR" OF APPEALS, PARIA, RUB ANN, %ARGARI"A, ROSARIO, $N"#IA, LINDA
O, a (ur'a5e $APA a' RA%ON A. GON/ALES, respondents.
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
G.R. No. 11882
PA"RIA, RUB ANN, %ARGARI"A, ROSARIO, $N"#IA, LINDA O, a (ur'a5e $APA, a'RA%ON A. GON/ALES, petitioners,vs.SPS. #ONORA"O D. SAN"OS a' %ARIA $RIS"INA S. SAN"OS, SPS. $E$ILIO L. PE a'OSEFINA L. PE, FLORA LARON ES$O%BE, SPS. "ELESFORO P. ALFELOR II a' LI/A R.ALFELOR, SPS. DEAN RODERI$ FERNANDO a' LAARNI %AGDA%O FERNANDO,
RE%EDIOS O$A, DEELOP%EN" BAN OF "#E P#ILIPPINES a' "RADERS ROALBAN, respondents.
& 4 !< H T = < /
APUNAN, J.:
=n our "ecision dated !epte-er 29, 1999, +e disposed of the consolidated cases as follo+s)
;4&45<&4, the "ecision of the Court of Appeals dated 5eruary 20, 1990, in CA:>.&.C.3. /o. 92, as -odified y its &esolution dated August 1, 1990 is herey A55=&M4".=n addition, Traders &oyal an is ordered to pay the Capays the fair -aret value of the
property at the ti-e it +as sold to 4-elita !antiago.
This "ecision is +ithout pre'udice to +hatever cri-inal, civil or ad-inistrative action againstthe &egister of "eeds andSor his assistants that -ay e tae y the party or partiespre'udiced y the failure of the for-er to carry over the notice of lis pendens to the certificateof title in the na-e of T&.
!< <&"4&4". 1
<n <ctoer 21, 1999, the Capays and &a-on >onales, private respondents in >.&. /o. 110299and petitioners in >.&. /o. 118862, filed a Motion for *artial &econsideration of the aove "ecision.They pray for the inclusion in the dispositive portion of said "ecision of an a+ard to each of the- the
a-ount of *1,. as -oral da-ages, *0,. as ee-plary da-ages, and *0,. asattorneyUs fees, all +ith legal interest at the ti-e of the filing of the co-plaint. They also as thatTraders &oyal an #T&% e ordered to pay the- the a-ount of *07,7., the price stipulated inthe "eed of Asolute !ale et+een said an and its transferee, 4-elita !antiago, plus interest at12B per annu- fro- the date of said contract, instead of the fair -aret value of the disputedproperty at the ti-e of said sale.
e clarify that +e did not delete the a+ard of -oral and ee-plary da-ages, attorneyUs fees, andinterest in favor of the -ovants. =t -ay e recalled that the trial court, in ruling for the Capays and
Atty. >onales, ordered the &egister of "eeds to cancel the certificate of titles issued in the na-esof the transferees and to issue ne+ ones in favor of the -ovants. =n addition, the trial court orderedT& to pay -ovants *1,. as -oral da-ages, *0,. as ee-plary da-ages, and*0,. as attorneyUs fees, +ith legal interest fro- the filing of the co-plaint. 2
The Court of Appeals initially affir-ed the decision of the trial court in toto. T& appealed to thisCourt +hile the suseuent transferees filed a -otion for reconsideration in the appellate court. TheCourt of Appeals, in a &esolution dated August 1, 1990, granted the transfereesU -otion thus)
ACC<&"=/>E, in vie+ of the foregoing disuisitions and finding -erit in the -otion forreconsideration, the sa-e is herey >&A/T4". Conseuently, the decision of this Court,pro-ulgated on 5eruary 20, 1990, is herey &4C</!="4&4". The co-plaint filed againstdefendants:appellants +ith the court a 'uo is herey ordered "=!M=!!4", and the certificateof titles originally issued to the- in their individual na-es are herey restored and dulyrespected. e -ae no pronounce-ents as to costs.
!< <&"4&4".
As stated in the aove &esolution, the appellate court -erely dis-issed the co-plaint as against thesuseuent transferees, not as against T&. =n effect, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision ofthe trial court ordering the cancellation of the certificates of title in the na-e of the suseuenttransferees ut sustained the a+ard of da-ages in favor of the -ovants herein. The decision of theCourt of appeals affir-ing the a+ard of da-ages re-ained unaffected y the suseuent resolution.T& did not specifically uestion the a+ard of da-ages +hen it appealed to this Court hence, suchissue +as eyond our revie+.
=nas-uch as +e affir-ed the decision of the Court of Appeals, as -odified y its resolution, thea+ard of da-ages in favor of -ovants need not e stated in detail. The o-ission should not e readas a deletion of the a+ard for da-ages. Accordingly, +e deny the prayer for the inclusion of sucha+ard in the dispositive portion of our decision.
==
Movants as that T& e ordered to pay the- the a-ount the for-er received fro- its i--ediatetransferee, 4-elita !antiago, and interest thereon, instead of the fair -aret value of the property atthe ti-e of said transfer. The asis for the a+ard of the a-ount constituting the value of the property,+hich +e decreed in our decision, is found in Article 10 of the Civil Code)
Art. 10. henever the person oliged y the decree of annul-ent to return the thing cannot do so ecause it has een lost through his fault, he shall return the fruits received andthe value of the thing at the ti-e of the loss, +ith interest fro- the said date.
=n accordance +ith the aove provision, -ovants +ould ordinarily e entitled to, aside fro- the valueof the property, interest thereon fro- the date of the loss, in this case, fro- the sale of the propertyy T& to 4-elita !antiago, +ith interest fro- said date. *ursuant also to the aove provision,-ovants +ould e entitled to the fruits received fro- said property, if evidence of such receipt offruits is presented.
Movants, ho+ever, insist upon the price of the property at the ti-e of the sale to 4-elita !antiago,+hich +as in the a-ount of *07,7. as appearing in the "eed of Asolute !ale. To this, T&poses no o'ection and +e tae the price stated in the deed of sale as a stipulation et+een theparties on the value of the property. Accordingly, +e grant -ovantsU prayer for said a-ount, +ith 12Bper annu- fro- said sale, the value of the property eing euivalent to a forearance of credit. 0
=/ 3=4 <5 T;4 5<&4><=/>, the Court &esolved to >&A/T =/ *A&T the *artial Motion for&econsideration and Motion for &econsideration. The dispositive portion of this CourtUs "ecision in>.&. /os. 110299 and 118862 dated !epte-er 20, 1999 is herey AM4/"4" as follo+s)
;4&45<&4, the "ecision of the Court of Appeals dated 5eruary 20, 1990 in CA:>.&.C.3. /o. 92, as -odified y its &esolution dated August 1, 1990 is herey A55=&M4".=n addition, Traders &oyal an is ordered to pay the Capays the a-ount of *07,7.,+ith 12B interest fro- the date of said sale until the sa-e is paid.
This "ecision is +ithout pre'udice to +hatever cri-inal, civil or ad-inistrative action againstthe &egister of "eeds andSor his assistants that -ay e tae y the party or partiespre'udiced y the failure of the for-er to carry over the notice of lis pendens to the certificate
of title in the na-e of T&.2Ewpi2.nt
!< <&"4&4".
!< <&"4&4".
Davide, (r., %.(., Puno and nares&Santiago, ((., concur.Pardo, (., on official business abroad.
Foo&'o&e(
1 "ecision, pp. 2@:26.
2 See "ecision, pp. @:6.
+ollo, >.&. /o. 118862, p. 6.
0 4astern !hipping ines, =nc. vs. Court of Appeals, 20 !C&A 78 #1990%.
BE"" B. LA$BAAN, *etitioner,vs.BAANI S. SA%O, R., &espondent.
" 4 C = ! = < /
ILLARA%A, R., J.:
This settles the petition for revie+ on certiorari filed y petitioner etty . acayan againstrespondent ayani !. !a-oy, (r. assailing the !epte-er 10, 20 "ecision1 of the Court of Appeals#CA% in CA:>.&. C3 /o. 67@96. The CA had affir-ed the 5eruary 1, 2 "ecision 2 of the&egional Trial Court #&TC%, ranch 220, of Kueon City declaring respondent as the sole o+ner ofthe properties involved in this suit and a+arding to hi-*1,. as attorneyUs fees.
This suit ste--ed fro- the follo+ing facts.
*etitioner and respondent -et each other through a co--on friend so-eti-e in 1978. "espiterespondent eing already -arried, their relationship developed until petitioner gave irth torespondentUs son on <ctoer 12, 1979.
"uring their illicit relationship, petitioner and respondent, together +ith three -ore incorporators,+ere ale to estalish a -anpo+er services co-pany.0 5ive parcels of land +ere also acuiredduring the said period and +ere registered in petitioner and respondentUs na-es, ostensily ashusand and +ife. The lands are riefly descried as follo+s)
1. A 2@@:suare -eter real estate property located at Malvar !t., Kueon City covered yTCT /o. 220 and registered in the na-e of ayani !. !a-oy, (r. $-arried to etty
acayan.$@
2. A 296:suare -eter real estate property located at Main Ave., Kueon City covered yTCT /o. 21 and registered in the na-e of $!pouses ayani !. !a-oy and ettyacayan.$6
. A :suare -eter real estate property located at Matatag !t., Kueon City covered yTCT /o. &T:8260 and registered in the na-e of ayani !. !a-oy, (r. $-arried to ettyacayan !a-oy.$7
0. A 18.2:suare -eter real estate property located at Foel !t., Kueon City covered yTCT /o. @19 and registered in the na-e of ayani !. !a-oy, (r. $-arried to etty .
!a-oy.$8
@. A 0:suare -eter real estate property located at "on 4nriue ;eights, Kueon Citycovered y TCT /o. 922 and registered in the na-e of ayani !. !a-oy, (r. $-arried toetty . !a-oy.$9
=nitially, petitioner lived +ith her parents in Mapagigay !t., 3. una, Kueon City. =n 198, petitionerleft her parents and decided to reside in the property located in Malvar !t. in *ro'ect 0, Kueon City.
ater, she and their son transferred to Foel !t., also in *ro'ect 0, and finally to the 0:suare-eter property in "on 4nriue ;eights.1
4ventually, ho+ever, their relationship turned sour and they decided to part +ays so-eti-e in 1991.=n 1998, oth parties agreed to divide the said properties and ter-inate their usiness partnership yeecuting a *artition Agree-ent.11 =nitially, respondent agreed to petitionerUs proposal that the
properties in Malvar !t. and "on 4nriue ;eights e assigned to the latter, +hile the o+nership overthe three other properties +ill go to respondent.12 ;o+ever, +hen petitioner +anted additionalde-ands to e included in the partition agree-ent, respondent refused.1 5eeling aggrieved,petitioner filed a co-plaint for 'udicial partition10 of the said properties efore the &TC in Kueon Cityon May 1, 1999.
=n her co-plaint, petitioner averred that she and respondent started to live together as husand and+ife in 1979 +ithout the enefit of -arriage and +ored together as usiness partners, acuiring realproperties a-ounting to*1@,@,..1@ &espondent, in his Ans+er,16 ho+ever, denied petitionerUsclai- of cohaitation and said that the properties +ere acuired out of his o+n personal funds+ithout any contriution fro- petitioner.17
"uring the trial, petitioner ad-itted that although they +ere together for al-ost 20 hours a day in198 until 1991, respondent +ould still go ho-e to his +ife usually in the +ee hours of the-orning.18 *etitioner lie+ise clai-ed that they acuired the said real estate properties fro- theinco-e of the co-pany +hich she and respondent estalished.19
&espondent, -ean+hile, testified that the properties +ere purchased fro- his personal funds,salaries, dividends, allo+ances and co--issions.2 ;e countered that the said properties +ereregistered in his na-e together +ith petitioner to eclude the sa-e fro- the property regi-e ofrespondent and his legal +ife, and to prevent the possile dissipation of the said properties since hislegal +ife +as then a heavy ga-ler.21 &espondent added that he also purchased the said propertiesas invest-ent, +ith the intention to sell the- later on for the purchase or construction of a ne+uilding.22
<n 5eruary 1, 2, the trial court rendered a decision dis-issing the co-plaint for lac of-erit.2 =n resolving the issue on o+nership, the &TC decided to give considerale +eight topetitionerUs o+n ad-ission that the properties +ere acuired not fro- her o+n personal funds utfro- the inco-e of the -anpo+er services co-pany over +hich she o+ns a -easly .B share.20
Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the -atter to the CA asserting that she is the pro indiviso o+ner ofone:half of the properties in dispute. *etitioner argued that the trial courtUs decision su'ected thecertificates of title over the said properties to collateral attac contrary to la+ and 'urisprudence.*etitioner also contended that it is i-proper to thresh out the issue on o+nership in an action forpartition.2@
Hni-pressed +ith petitionerUs argu-ents, the appellate court denied the appeal, eplaining in the
follo+ing -anner)
AppellantUs harping on the indefeasiility of the certificates of title covering the su'ect realties is, tosay the least, -isplaced. &ather than the validity of said certificates +hich +as no+here dealt +ith inthe appealed decision, the record sho+s that +hat the trial court deter-ined therein +as theo+nership of the su'ect realties V itself an issue correlative to and a necessary ad'unct of the clai-of co:o+nership upon +hich appellant anchored her cause of action for partition. =t earse-phasiing, -oreover, that the rule on the indefeasiility of a Torrens title applies only to originaland not to suseuent registration as that availed of y the parties in respect to the properties in
litigation. To our -ind, the inapplicaility of said principle to the case at ench is even -oreunderscored y the ad-itted falsity of the registration of the selfsa-e realties in the partiesU na-e ashusand and +ife.
The sa-e dearth of -erit per-eates appellantUs i-putation of reversile error against the trial courtfor supposedly failing to -ae the proper delineation et+een an action for partition and an action
involving o+nership. Typically rought y a person clai-ing to e co:o+ner of a specified propertyagainst a defendant or defendants +ho- the plaintiff recognies to e co:o+ners, an action forpartition -ay e seen to present si-ultaneously t+o principal issues, i.e., first, the issue of +hetherthe plaintiff is indeed a co:o+ner of the property sought to e partitioned and, second V assu-ingthat the plaintiff successfully hurdles the first V the issue of ho+ the property is to e divided et+eenplaintiff and defendant#s%. <ther+ise stated, the court -ust initially settle the issue of o+nership forthe si-ple reason that it cannot properly issue an order to divide the property +ithout first -aing adeter-ination as to the eistence of co:o+nership. Hntil and unless the issue of o+nership isdefinitely resolved, it +ould e pre-ature to effect a partition of the properties. This is precisely +hatthe trial court did +hen it discounted the -erit in appellantUs clai- of co:o+nership. 26
;ence, this petition pre-ised on the follo+ing argu-ents)
=. <+nership cannot e passed upon in a partition case.
==. The partition agree-ent duly signed y respondent contains an ad-ission againstrespondentUs interest as to the eistence of co:o+nership et+een the parties.
===. An action for partition cannot e defeated y the -ere epedience of repudiating co:o+nership ased on self:serving clai-s of eclusive o+nership of the properties in dispute.
=3. A Torrens title is the est evidence of o+nership +hich cannot e out+eighed yrespondentUs self:serving assertion to the contrary.
3. The properties involved +ere acuired y oth parties through their actual 'ointcontriution of -oney, property, or industry.27
/oticealy, the last argu-ent is essentially a uestion of fact, +hich +e feel has een suarelythreshed out in the decisions of oth the trial and appellate courts. e dee- it +ise not to distur thefindings of the lo+er courts on the said -atter asent any sho+ing that the instant case falls underthe eceptions to the general rule that uestions of fact are eyond the a-it of the CourtUs
'urisdiction in petitions under &ule 0@ of the 1997 &ules of Civil *rocedure, as a-ended. The issues-ay e su--aried into only three)
=. hether an action for partition precludes a settle-ent on the issue of o+nership
==. hether the Torrens title over the disputed properties +as collaterally attaced in theaction for partition and
===. hether respondent is estopped fro- repudiating co:o+nership over the su'ect realties.
<ur disuisition in Municipality of iRan v. >arcia28 is definitive. There, +e eplained that thedeter-ination as to the eistence of co:o+nership is necessary in the resolution of an action forpartition. Thus)
The first phase of a partition andSor accounting suit is taen up +ith the deter-ination of +hether ornot a co:o+nership in fact eists, and a partition is proper #i.e., not other+ise legally proscried% and
-ay e -ade y voluntary agree-ent of all the parties interested in the property. This phase -ayend +ith a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition either ecause a co:o+nershipdoes not eist, or partition is legally prohiited. =t -ay end, on the other hand, +ith an ad'udg-entthat a co:o+nership does in truth eist, partition is proper in the pre-ises and an accounting of rentsand profits received y the defendant fro- the real estate in uestion is in order.
The second phase co--ences +hen it appears that $the parties are unale to agree upon thepartition$ directed y the court. =n that eventI,J partition shall e done for the parties y the IcJourt+ith the assistance of not -ore than three #% co--issioners. This second stage -ay +ell also deal+ith the rendition of the accounting itself and its approval y the IcJourt after the parties have eenaccorded opportunity to e heard thereon, and an a+ard for the recovery y the party or partiesthereto entitled of their 'ust share in the rents and profits of the real estate in uestion.
29
#4-phasis supplied.%
hile it is true that the co-plaint involved here is one for partition, the sa-e is pre-ised on theeistence or non:eistence of co:o+nership et+een the parties. *etitioner insists she is a co:o+nerpro indiviso of the five real estate properties ased on the transfer certificates of title #TCTs% coveringthe su'ect properties. &espondent -aintains other+ise. =nduitaly, therefore, until and unless thisissue of co:o+nership is definitely and finally resolved, it +ould e pre-ature to effect a partition ofthe disputed properties. More i-portantly, the co-plaint +ill not even lie if the clai-ant, or petitioner in this case, does not even have any rightful interest over the su'ect properties. 1
ould a resolution on the issue of o+nership su'ect the Torrens title issued over the disputedrealties to a collateral attac Most definitely, it +ould not.
There is no dispute that a Torrens certificate of title cannot e collaterally attaced,2 ut that rule isnot -aterial to the case at ar. hat cannot e collaterally attaced is the certificate of title and notthe title itself. The certificate referred to is that docu-ent issued y the &egister of "eeds no+n asthe TCT. =n contrast, the title referred to y la+ -eans o+nership +hich is, -ore often than not,represented y that docu-ent.0 *etitioner apparently confuses title +ith the certificate of title. Titleas a concept of o+nership should not e confused +ith the certificate of title as evidence of sucho+nership although oth are interchangealy used. @
Moreover, placing a parcel of land under the -antle of the Torrens syste- does not -ean thato+nership thereof can no longer e disputed. <+nership is different fro- a certificate of title, thelatter only serving as the est proof of o+nership over a piece of land. The certificate cannot al+ayse considered as conclusive evidence of o+nership.6 =n fact, -ere issuance of the certificate of title
in the na-e of any person does not foreclose the possiility that the real property -ay e under co:o+nership +ith persons not na-ed in the certificate, or that the registrant -ay only e a trustee, orthat other parties -ay have acuired interest over the property suseuent to the issuance of thecertificate of title.7 /eedless to say, registration does not vest o+nership over a property, ut -ay ethe est evidence thereof. 2avvpi2
5inally, as to +hether respondentUs assent to the initial partition agree-ent serves as an ad-issionagainst interest, in that the respondent is dee-ed to have ad-itted the eistence of co:o+nershipet+een hi- and petitioner, +e rule in the negative.
An ad-ission is any state-ent of fact -ade y a party against his interest or unfavorale to theconclusion for +hich he contends or is inconsistent +ith the facts alleged y hi-.8 Ad-ission againstinterest is governed y !ection 26 of &ule 1 of the &ules of Court, +hich provides)
!ec. 26. Ad$issions of a party . V The act, declaration or o-ission of a party as to a relevant fact-ay e given in evidence against hi-.
To e ad-issile, an ad-ission -ust #a% involve -atters of fact, and not of la+ #% e categoricaland definite #c% e no+ingly and voluntarily -ade and #d% e adverse to the ad-itterUs interests,other+ise it +ould e self:serving and inad-issile.9
A careful perusal of the contents of the so:called *artition Agree-ent indicates that the docu-entinvolves -atters +hich necessitate prior settle-ent of uestions of la+, asic of +hich is adeter-ination as to +hether the parties have the right to freely divide a-ong the-selves the su'ectproperties. Moreover, to follo+ petitionerUs argu-ent +ould e to allo+ respondent not only to ad-itagainst his o+n interest ut that of his legal spouse as +ell, +ho -ay also e la+fully entitled co:o+nership over the said properties. &espondent is not allo+ed y la+ to +aive +hatever share hisla+ful spouse -ay have on the disputed properties. asic is the rule that rights -ay e +aived,
unless the +aiver is contrary to la+, pulic order, pulic policy, -orals, good custo-s or pre'udicial toa third person +ith a right recognied y la+.0
Curiously, petitioner herself ad-itted that she did not assent to the *artition Agree-ent after seeingthe need to a-end the sa-e to include other -atters. *etitioner does not have any right to insist onthe contents of an agree-ent she intentionally refused to sign.
As to the a+ard of da-ages to respondent, +e do not suscrie to the trial courtUs vie+ thatrespondent is entitled to attorneyUs fees. Hnlie the trial court, +e do not co--iserate +ithrespondentUs predica-ent. The trial court ruled that respondent +as forced to litigate and engagedthe services of his counsel to defend his interest as to entitle hi- an a+ard of *1,. asattorneyUs fees. ut +e note that in the first place, it +as respondent hi-self +ho i-pressed uponpetitioner that she has a right over the involved properties. !econdly, respondentUs act ofrepresenting hi-self and petitioner as husand and +ife +as a delierate atte-pt to sirt the la+and escape his legal oligation to his la+ful +ife. &espondent, therefore, has no one ut hi-self tola-e the conseuences of his deceitful act +hich resulted in the filing of the co-plaint against hi-.
;4&45<&4, the petition is "4/=4". The !epte-er 10, 20 "ecision of the Court of Appeals inCA:>.&. C3 /o. 67@96 is A55=&M4" +ith M<"=5=CAT=</. &espondent ayani !. !a-oy, (r. isherey declared the sole o+ner of the disputed properties, +ithout pre'udice to any clai- his legal+ife -ay have filed or -ay file against hi-. The a+ard of *1,. as attorneyUs fees inrespondentUs favor is "44T4".
= attest that the conclusions in the aove "ecision had een reached in consultation efore the case+as assigned to the +riter of the opinion of the CourtUs "ivision.
$ON$#I"A $ARPIO %ORALES Associate (usticeChairperson, Third "ivision
$ E R " I F I $ A " I O N
*ursuant to !ection 1, Article 3=== of the 1987 Constitution and the "ivision ChairpersonUs Attestation, = certify that the conclusions in the aove "ecision had een reached in consultationefore the case +as assigned to the +riter of the opinion of the CourtUs "ivision.
RENA"O $. $ORONAChief (ustice
Foo&'o&e(
1 &ollo, pp. 28:02. *enned y Associate (ustice &eecca "e >uia:!alvador, +ith Associate(ustices *ortia AliRo:;or-achuelos and Aurora !antiago:ag-an, concurring
2 T!/, ayani !a-oy, (r., "ece-er 1, 1999, pp. 22:2 and 27.
21 =d. at 28:1.
22 =d. at 29:2.
2 The dispositive portion of the 5eruary 1, 2 &TC "ecision reads)
;4&45<&4, pre-ises considered, the present co-plaint is herey "=!M=!!4"for lac of -erit and the defendant is herey ad'udged as the sole o+ner of theproperties +hich are the su'ect -atters of this case. 5urther-ore, the plaintiff isherey directed to pay the defendant the a-ount of *1,. as and forattorneyUs fees and to pay the cost of this suit.
!ee 5arica v. Court of Appeals, /o. :076, "ece-er 1@, 1986, 106 !C&A 2@, 2@@:2@6.
1 Catapusan v. Court of Appeals, >.&. /o. 19262, /ove-er 21, 1996, 260 !C&A @0,@8.
2 !ection 08 of *residential "ecree /o. 1@29, other+ise no+n as the *roperty &egistration"ecree, states in full)
!4C. 08. Certificate not su'ect to collateral attac. V A certificate of title shall not esu'ect to collateral attac. =t cannot e altered, -odified, or cancelled ecept in adirect proceeding in accordance +ith la+.
ee Te !heng v. Court of Appeals, >.&. /o. 11@02, (uly 1@, 1998, 292 !C&A @00, @07.
This case ste--ed fro- a co-plaint for 'udicial partition of several properties ased on thepetitionerUs assertion of co:o+nership. As in other civil cases, the urden of proof rests on the party#the petitioner in this case% +ho, as deter-ined y the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts
the affir-ative in the issue presented.1
!u'ect to -y oservations elo+, = find that the petitioner failed to discharge y clear preponderantevidence her co:o+nership of the su'ect properties to +arrant their 'udicial partition. = confine -yself to this conclusion, ho+ever, as the issue efore us is solely on +hether a 'udicial partition should e-ade. !pecifically and as articulated in -y oservations elo+, = cannot 'oin the ponenciaUs otherrulings.
Article 108 of the 5a-ily Code +hich applies to the property relationship in a cohaitation situation,is clear on the conditions it i-poses. The first sentence of this article states)
=n cases of cohaitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acuired y othof the partiesthrough their actual 'oint contriution of -oney, property, or industry shall e o+ned ythe- in co--on in proportion to their respective contriutions. Iunderscoring suppliedJ
Thus, any property acuired during the cohaitation can only e considered co--on property if t+o#2% conditions are -et) first, there -ust e evidence sho+ing that the properties +ere acuired ythe parties during their cohaitation and second, there -ust e evidence that the properties +ereacuired through the partiesU actual 'oint contriution of -oney, property, or industry. !tated plainly,co:o+nership only arises +hen there is clear proof sho+ing the acuisition of the property during thecohaitation of the parties, and the actual 'oint contriution of the parties to acuire the sa-e. Theset+o #2% conditions -ust concur.
<n the contriution aspect of these ele-ents, -ere cohaitation under Article 108 of the 5a-ilyCode, +ithout proof of contriution, +ill not result in a co:o+nership proof of actual contriution -uste estalished y clear evidence sho+ing that the party either used his or her o+n -oney or that he
or she actually contriuted his or her o+n -oney to purchase the property.2
(urisprudence holds thatthis fact -ay e proven y evidence in the for- of an account state-ents and an transactionsas +ell as testi-onial evidence proving the financial capacity of the party to purchase the property or contriute to the purchase of a property.
=n this case, the presu-ption of co:o+nership over the su'ect properties et+een the petitioner andthe respondent did not arise. hile the first condition +as duly proven y evidence, the secondcondition +as not.
The records sufficiently estalish the first condition sho+ing the acuisition of the su'ect propertiesfro- 1978 to 1991 or during the cohaitation of the petitioner and the respondent. The secondcondition is not si-ilarly estalished since no evidence +as adduced sho+ing the petitionerUs actualcontriutions in the acuisition of the su'ect properties.
!ince the petition asserts an affir-ative allegation #i.e., her co:o+nership of the su'ect properties to+hich she ases her action for 'udicial partition% she carries the urden of sustantiating her clai-.!he failed in this regard. The records sho+ that she did not present any evidence sho+ing that thefunds or a portion of the funds used to purchase the su'ect properties ca-e fro- her o+n earnings.<n the contrary, the petitioner presented contradictory evidence +hen she ad-itted that the fundsused to purchase the su'ect properties did not co-e fro- her o+n earnings ut fro- the inco-e ofthe -anpo+er usiness +hich she -anaged. The &egional Trial Court found that she only o+ned.B of share in this corporation.
Hnless there is a clear sho+ing to the contrary, inco-e fro- a usiness cannot auto-atically econsidered as personal earnings, especially in this case +here the inco-e the petitioner referred to
is corporate inco-e. The petitioner should have presented evidence sho+ing that the inco-e shereferred to actually accrued to her in the for- of salaries, onuses, co--issions andSor dividendsfro- the -anpo+er usiness. <ther+ise, the rule regarding the corporationUs distinct legalpersonality fro- its officers, stocholders and -e-ers applies.0 Hnless other+ise sho+n, thesource of the earnings +ould e the corporationUs, not the petitionerUs.
= additionally oserve that ecept for one, all the su'ect properties na-e the respondent as theeclusive registered o+ner. Although the -ere issuance of a certificate of title in the na-e of anyperson does not foreclose the possiility that the real properties covered therey -ay e under co:
o+nership +ith the petitioner and vice:versa, the fact re-ains that the su'ect properties areregistered in the respondentUs na-e. The reuttale presu-ption is that these properties elong tothe respondent or to the con'ugal partnership of the respondent, in line +ith Article 116 of the 5a-ilyCode and Article 16 of the Civil Code.@
=n su-, the petitionerUs case for 'udicial partition of the su'ect properties has no legal asis in the
asence of a clear evidence of co:o+nership proven under the circu-stances. Conseuently, +e-ust deny the petition for lac of -erit +ithout.
As final oservations, = disagree +ith the Ma'orityUs conclusion declaring the respondent as the soleo+ner of all the properties sought to e partitioned. &ecords sho+ that the petitioner is a registeredco:o+ner of one of the five #@% properties cited in this case, i.e., the real estate under TCT /o. 21registered in the na-e of $!pouses ayani !. !a-oy and etty acayan.$ y the tenor of itsdecision, the Ma'ority effectively #and unnecessarily% introduced a cloud over the petitionerUsinterests in this co--only:o+ned property. = note, too, that the co-plaint underlying this petition isan action for partition the ad'udication of this case should necessarily e li-ited to resolving thepropriety of the partition sought. /otaly, the Ma'ority itself recognies that registration in oneUs na-eis +ithout pre'udice to an action seeing to estalish co:o+nership.
=n light of the undisputed 'oint o+nership of the property co--only registered under the partiesUna-es, this "ecision should e +ithout pre'udice to an action for partition to divide up this property Va re-edy +e cannot no+ provide in the asence of any factual asis on ho+ the parties contriutedin acuiring this property. Alternatively, the actual partition of this co--only:o+ned property shoulde re-anded to the trial court for deter-ination of ho+ partition should e -ade.
The phrase, $+ithout pre'udice to any clai- his legal +ife -ay have filed or -ay file against hi-$ inthe last part of the dispositive portion of the "ecision, is si-ilarly o'ectionale. 5or one, no issueeists in this case et+een the legiti-ate spouses regarding the nature of the properties theyco--only or individually hold. Additionally, the phrase creates the i-pression that the Court is givinglegal advice to the +ife of the respondent on +hat course of action to tae against her husand. Thisstate-ent is eyond +hat this Court should properly state in its "ecision given the facts and issues
posed, and is plainly uncalled for.
!u'ect to these oservations, = concur +ith the opinion of the Ma'ority.
AR"URO D. BRION Associate (ustice
Foo&'o&e(
1 !aguid v. Court of Appeals, >.&. /o. 1@611, (une 1, 2, 0 !C&A 678.
2 3illanueva v. Court of Appeals, >.&. /o. 10286, April 10, 20, 027 !C&A 09.
