Heirs of Pedro Lopez et. al. v Honesto C. de Castro, et. al. GR No. 112905, February 3, 2000

“two applications of a parcel of land”

Facts:

The petitioners filed an application for registration of parcel of land located in Tagaytay City with the CFI in Cavite. The Municipality of Silang, Cavite files an opposition alleging that the land is its patrimonial property. The petitioners claim that the land is a part of the whole tract of land as their inheritance sought to be registered in Cavite but was excluded from their application upon recommendation of the chief surveyor of the Land Reg. Office because the land is located in the Province of Laguna. The motion to dismiss by the Municipality of Silang was denied by the court due to lack of merit on ground that the municipality has no personality to intervene because the lot was outside its territorial limits. And even if it is a communal property of both municipalities, the incorporation of Cavite to the city of Tagaytay makes it a property of the latter. Thus the right to action accrues to the municipality of Tagaytay. Upon deliberation, the Clerk of Court recommended to grant the application with its report disclosing that since time immemorial, the De Los Reyes family owned and possessed the land and sold it to the father of the applicant, Pedro Lopez who later took over the ownership and possession of the land. Upon his death, his heirs succeeded over the property and subsequently partitioned it. The court thus approved the application and ordered the registration of the land in favor of the petitioner.

While examining the records in the course of granting the registration to the petitioners, it was found out that the land was already registered in favor of the respondents Honesto de Castro. Apparently, de Castro filed the registration of land in the CFI of Cavite in its Branch IV in Tagaytay City and a decision was promulgated to issue the decree of registration in his favor. The said land was allegedly owned by Hermogenes Orte who sold it to the father of the respondent by virtue of a deed of sale that was destroyed during Japanese occupation. His father continued possession and occupation of the land until his death and his wife and children continued the possession thereof and finally registered it in their name. 7 years later, the petitioner files a complaint for the execution of the judgment rendered in their favor by the court and cancellation of title of the respondents and order the respondents to vacate the property. In their counterclaim, the respondents interpose the defense of latches, prescription and estoppel against the petitioners and asserting the indefeasibility of their title under the Torrens System.

Lower court: held that it could not enforce the judgment against the respondents considering they were not made parties to the case. Nor can it order the register of deeds of Tagaytay City to cancel the title of respondents since it was not also made a party to the case thus the court does not acquire jurisdiction over it. Further, the court held that the action brought by the petitioners would be tantamount to the nature of collaterally attacking the validity of the title of the respondents.

Court of appeals: Upon appeal to the CA, it re-affirms the lower court’s decision with emphasis on the indefeasibility of the Torrens Title while citing the Civil Code provisions on Article 1544 on sale of property to different vendees where in case the land has been registered in the name of two different persons, the earlier in date of registration shall prevail.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioners can question the validity of the title of the respondents over the property in dispute?

Ruling:

The court held that a land registration is an in rem proceeding which involves a constructive notice against all persons including the state which is effective through the publication of the application for land registration. The court held that when more than one certificate of title is issued over the land, the person holding the prior certificate of title is entitled to a better right against the person who relies on the subsequent certificate. This rule refers to the date of the certificate of title and not on the date of filing the application for registration of title. In land registration proceedings, all interested parties are obliged to take care of their interests and to zealously pursue their objective of registration on account of the rule that whoever first acquires title to a piece of land shall prevail. The publication made with respect to the application of the respondents served as a constructive notice against the whole world thus the court upheld the validity of their title and its indefeasibility against collateral attack from the petitioners.

Granting that the petitioners did not have actual knowledge about the respondent’s application to the land, they waited for 7 more years after knowing that the property was already registered in the name of the respondents to demand for the execution of judgment and cancellation of the respondent’s title. Therefore the SC finds them guilty of latches. Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Note:

Jurisdiction issue:

The governing law when the respondent sought registration of their land was the Judiciary Act of 1948 providing permanent station of 2 district judges in Cavite, thus the application was filed before the court in Cavite. This was later amended providing for the 4 judges to preside in the Province of Cavite, the cities of Cavite and Tagaytay. Following the rule on jurisdiction, the court of the place where the property is located should take cognizance over the registration of property therefore upon the creation of Tagaytay City branch of court, the application should have been transferred from Cavite to Tagaytay branch. Retaining the venue of the application in Cavite however is in order since venue is merely procedural not jurisdictional and may be waived in lieu of convenience to the parties. The petitioner’s assailing the jurisdiction of the Cavite branch rendering decision in favor of the respondent’s title over the property located in Tagaytay cannot be sustained by the court.