Aniceto Sumulong vs. Fortunato Sumulong G.R. No. S.P. No. 68699 June 16, 2006

"Jurisdiction"

Facts:

Fortunato Sumulong applied for an application for a land registration for a parcel of land before the RTC which was later assigned to the MTC pursuant to delegated 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 general default and to admit opposition contending he is a part owner and actual occupant of the land whose name was omitted by Fortunato in his application for registration. This amounts to failure of Fortunato to comply with the requirement set forth in Section 15 and 23 of PD 1529 which makes the land registration proceeding null and void with the deliberate omission of his name as one of the occupants and part owner of said land as constituting fraud. He further contends that the application failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirement because the 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 registration was published it was a notice sent to the whole world and the MTC has acquired jurisdiction over it and Aniceto’s claim of no knowledge about the registration cannot be given any due course. Upon appeal, the CA denied Aniceto’s motion for reconsideration contending that the assessed value of the property as provided in the tax declaration should be followed which is valued at P50,860.00 and upheld the lower court’s 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 registration 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 cadastral land valued at less than 100,000 as ascertained from the affidavit of the claimant or tax declaration of property shall be before the MTC. It is not the assessed market value that should be followed. Hence the MTC has the proper jurisdiction over the land in dispute.

On one hand, failure of Fortunato to declare Aniceto as one of the part owners of the land is in violation of the provisions of PD 1529. The court noted that both 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 that 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 constitutes fraud rendering the land registration in his name as null and void.