Facts:

Fortunato Sumulong applied for an application for a land registration for a parc
el of land before the RTC which was later assigned to the MTC pursuant to delega
ted jurisdiction. He wants the land to be confirmed and registered in his name.
In opposition, Aniceto filed a motion to reopen the case, lift the order of gene
ral default and to admit opposition contending he is a part owner and actual occ
upant of the land whose name was omitted by Fortunato in his application for reg
istration. This amounts to failure of Fortunato to comply with the requirement s
et forth in Section 15 and 23 of PD 1529 which makes the land registration proce
eding null and void with the deliberate omission of his name as one of the occup
ants and part owner of said land as constituting fraud. He further contends that
the application failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirement because th
e market value of the property is more than P100,000 and should be heard before
the RTC. The MTC ruled in favor of Fortunato holding that when the said land reg
istration was published it was a notice sent to the whole world and the MTC has
acquired jurisdiction over it and Anicetos claim of no knowledge about the regist
ration cannot be given any due course. Upon appeal, the CA denied Anicetos motion
for reconsideration contending that the assessed value of the property as provi
ded in the tax declaration should be followed which is valued at P50,860.00 and
upheld the lower courts decision.
Issue:
Whether or not the MTC has the proper jurisdiction to hear the case.
Whether or not provisions from PD 1529 has been violated to render the land regi
stration null and void.
Held:
The court held that Section 34 of B.P. Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980, as amended by R.A. 7691 provides that delegated jurisdiction over c
adastral land valued at less than 100,000 as ascertained from the affidavit of t
he claimant or tax declaration of property shall be before the MTC. It is not th
e assessed market value that should be followed. Hence the MTC has the proper ju
risdiction over the land in dispute.
On one hand, failure of Fortunato to declare Aniceto as one of the part owners o
f the land is in violation of the provisions of PD 1529. The court noted that bo
th Fortunato and Aniceto are neighbors as certified by their Brgy. Cpt., Aniceto
holds a Declaration of Real Property in the year 1977 with proof of receipt tha
t he is paying real property tax. The court has reason to believe that Fortunato
deliberately omitted Aniceto as part owner when he registered the land. Such co
nstitutes fraud rendering the land registration in his name as null and void.