HEIRS OF DORONIO vs.

HEIRS OF DORONIO[2008] Facts: Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante deceased,were the registered owners of a parcel of land located. Marcelino Doronio and Fortunato Doronio, deceased, were the children of the spouses and the parties in this case are their heirs. Petitioners are the heirs of Marcelino Doronio, while respondents are the heirs of Fortunato Doronio. Eager to obtain the entire property, the heirs of Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico filed before the RTC in Urdaneta, Pangasinana petition "For the Registration of a Private Deed of Donation"docketed as Petition Case No. U920. No respondents were named in the said petition although notices of hearing were posted on the bulletin boards of Barangay Cabalitaan, Municipalities of Asingan and Lingayen. During the hearings, no one interposed an objection to the petition. After the RTC ordered a general default, the petition was eventually granted on September 22, 1993. This led to the registration of the deed of donation, cancellation of OCT No. 352 and issuance of anew Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 44481 in the names of Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico. Thus, the entire property was titled in the names of petitioners predecessors. On April 28, 1994,the heirs of Fortunato Doronio filed a pleading before the RTC in the form of a petition in the same Petition Case No. U-920. The petition was for the reconsideration of the decision of the RTC that ordered the registration of the subject deed of donation. It was prayed in the petition that an order be issued declaring null and void the registration of the private deed of donation and that TCT No. 44481 be cancelled. However, the petition was dismissed on the ground that the decision in Petition Case No. U-920 had already become final as it was not appealed.

.Issue: Can respondents be bound by the decision in Petition CaseNo. U-920 even if they were not made parties in the said case? Held:Petitioners cannot use the finality of the RTC decision in Petition Case No. U-920 as a shield against the verification of the validity of the deed of donation. According to petitioners, the said final decision is one for quieting of title. In other words, it is a case for declaratory relief under Rule 64 (now Rule 63) of the Rules of Court. Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem, nor are they, strictly speaking, in personam, but being against the person in respect of the res, these proceedings are characterized as quasi in rem. The judgment in such proceedings is conclusive only between the parties. Thus, respondents are not bound by the decision in Petition Case No. U-920 as they were not made parties in the said case.The rules on quieting of title expressly provide that any declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons who are not parties to the action. That respondents filed a subsequent pleading in the same Petition Case No. U-920 after the decision there had become final did not change the fact that said decision became final without their being impleaded in the case. Said subsequent pleading was dismissed onthe ground of finality of the decision. \