G.R. No.

161034

June 30, 2009

ZENAIDA ACOSTA, EDUARDO ACOSTA, ARNOLD ACOSTA, DELIA ACOSTA, SPS. TEODULO MACHADO AND AURORA ORENZA, SPS. ROLDAN PALARCA AND PACITA PANGILINAN, SPS. FROMENCIO JONATAS AND LUCENA M. MARIANO, SPS. MARCIAL IGLESIA AND VIRGINIA LAPURGA, ATTY.-IN-FACT FELINO MACARAEG, SPS. MANUEL MANGROBANG AND VALERIANA SOTIO, SPS. VIRGINIA DELA ROSA AND ROMEO DELA ROSA, SPS. PACIFICO SOTIO AND LOLITA SORIANO, JUAN DALINOC (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY DAUGHTER CONSUELO DALINOC, SPS. MARIANO TORIO AND MAXIMA MACARAEG, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS TORIBIA TORIO AND MAYUMI MACARAEG, TEOFILO MOLINA AND AVELINO DIZON vs. TRINIDAD SALAZAR AND ANICETA SALAZAR

NACHURA, J.: FACTS: On November 19, 1985, respondents Trinidad and Aniceta Salazar (hereinafter, Salazars), filed a petition for the cancellation of the entries annotated at the back of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 40287 registered in the names of spouses Juan Soriano and Vicenta Macaraeg, who died without issue. RTC Branch 63 of Tarlac resolved to grant the petition and ordered the cancellation of Entry No. 20102. No respondent was impleaded in the said petition. However, on September 14, 1989, Branch 64 of the RTC of Tarlac reversed and declared as null and void the decision of Branch 63. Unsatisfied, the Salazars appealed to the Court of Appeals. Petitioners, on the other hand, contended that the orders of RTC Branch 63 are null and void for lack of proper notice. The CA ratiocinated that the proceeding is a land registration proceeding, which is an action in rem. This being so, personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land sought to be registered is not necessary in order to vest the court with jurisdiction over the res and over the parties. ISSUE: Whether or not the action taken by the Salazars in Branch 63 of the RTC of Tarlac is valid. HELD: No. It is true that the registration of land under the Torrens system is a proceeding in rem and not in personam. Such a proceeding in rem, dealing with a tangible res, may be instituted and carried to judgment without personal service upon the claimants within the state or notice by mail to those outside of it. Jurisdiction is acquired by virtue of the power of the court over the res. Such a proceeding would be impossible were this not so, for it would hardly do to make a

distinction between constitutional rights of claimants who were known and those who were not known to the plaintiff, when the proceeding is to bar all. Interestingly, however, the proceedings instituted by the Salazar can hardly be classified as actions in rem. The petition for cancellation of entries annotated at the back of OCT No. 40287 ought to have been directed against specific persons: namely, the heirs of Juan Soriano as appearing in Entry No. 20102 and, indubitably, against their successors-ininterest who have acquired different portions of the property over the years because it is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. Accordingly, the Salazars should have impleaded as party defendants the heirs of Juan Soriano and/or Vicenta Macaraeg as well as those claiming ownership over the property under their names because they are indispensable parties.

(The underlined part is the portion of the ruling quoted by our book.)

G.R. No. 150741

June 12, 2008

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SPS. VICENTE LAGRAMADA and BONIFACIA LAGRAMADA CARPIO, J.:

FACTS: Lot 8 of Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-28958, with an area of 500 square meters and located at Banlat, Tandang Sora, Quezon City, was allegedly covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 118717 in the name of Reynaldo Pangilinan (Pangilinan). The original copy of TCT No. 118717 was allegedly destroyed when a fire razed the office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. Pangilinan then sold Lot 8 to the spouses Vicente and Bonifacia Lagramada (respondents). Respondents filed a petition for reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. 118717 and for the issuance of a second owner's duplicate copy of the title. Pangilinan allegedly misplaced the owner's duplicate copy and it could no longer be found despite diligent efforts to find it. One of the documents submitted as evidentiary bases for the reconstitution Tax Declaration No. C-122-01735 in the name of Pangilinan. ISSUE: Whether or not the tax declaration submitted by respondent would constitute a sufficient basis for reconstitution of TCT No. 118717. HELD: No. Among the documents submitted was Tax Declaration No. D-122-13529 issued for the year beginning 1996. Tax Declaration No. D-122-13529 was issued in the name of Pangilinan at the instance of respondents who paid the realty taxes from 1976 to 1996. It supposedly cancelled Tax Declaration No. C-122-01735. However, an annotation in Tax Declaration No. C-122-01735 indicated that it was already cancelled on 21 February 1993. In addition, both Tax Declaration Nos. D-122-13529 and C-122-01735 do not even indicate the boundaries of the lot. A tax declaration by itself is not sufficient to prove ownership (Republic v. Manna Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 146527, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA 247.).

G.R. No. 110207 July 11, 1996 FLORENTINO REYES, SPOUSES EDUARDO REYES AND ANITA MABABANGLOOB, ENGRACIA REYES, SPOUSES ZACARIAS AND NORMA R. MADRID, SPOUSES ALBERTO AND NORMA N. REYES, SPOUSES, TEODORO AND DOLORES S. REYES vs. COURT OF APPEALS (NINTH DIVISION) AND JACINTA REYES, PAULA REYES, AND PETRA REYES

ROMERO, J.:p FACTS: A parcel of land located in Bangkal, Makati measuring Three Hundred Eighty Three (383) Square Meters was partitioned by virtue of an alleged Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Settlement entered into between petitioner Florentino and his sisters (private respondents herein) Jacinta, Paula and Petra, all surnamed Reyes. Said parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 22801 was registered in the name of Bernardino Reyes, the father of petitioner and private respondents. On a Complaint for "Annulment of Sale and Damages With Prayer for Preliminary Injunction/Restraining Order" before the Makati Regional Trial Court against petitioner and the Register of Deeds of Makati file by private respondent. It was found out that the private respondents' signatures on the questioned Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Settlement were indeed forged and simulated. As a result of such finding, the RTC issued an order enjoining the Register of Deeds of Makati from issuing and delivering the Transfer Certificates of Title in question to the petitioners and from collecting the monthly rentals due on the subject parcel of land. Petitioners thereafter contend in the highest court that even assuming that there was forgery, they had become absolute owners of the subject property by virtue of acquisitive prescription ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners had become absolute owners of the subject property by virtue of acquisitive prescription. HELD: No. There can be no acquisitive prescription considering that the parcel of land in dispute is titled property, i.e., titled in the name of the late Bernardino Reyes, the father of both petitioner Florentino and the private respondents. Hence, even if they allege adverse possession that should ripen into ownership due to acquisitive prescription, their title cannot defeat the real rights of private respondents who stepped into the shoes, as it were, of their father as successors-ininterest. As it is, petitioners cannot even claim adverse possession as they admit that the private respondents likewise resided and continue to reside on the subject property.