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 ofSilang, 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 ofSilang 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 Tagaytaymakes 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
courts 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 respondents 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 respondents title. Therefore the SC finds
them guilty of latches. Petitioners 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 petitioners assailing the jurisdiction of
the Cavite branch rendering decision in favor of the respondents
title over the property located in Tagaytay cannot be sustained by
the court.

LOPEZ v. ENRIQUEZ

FACTS:
Sandoval and Ozaeta filed an application for registration of title in the RTC.
RTC subsequently granted their request. The heirs of Enriquez filed a motion
alleging that Sandoval and Ozaeta sold the lots in question to their deceased
father, Eugenio Lopez, Sr. However, the decision of the RTC on the
application for registration of Sandoval and Ozaeta being final and executory,
the LRA issued titles in their names. The petitioners (heirs) filed a motion to
nullify said OCTs.
They also applied with the Register of Deeds for the annotation of the notice
of lis pendens on the back of the OCTs. The LRA denied said application on
the basis of the notice not being registrable solely because of the motion to
nullify the OCTs. CA affirmed the LRAs decision.
ISSUE:
W/N the petitioners motion to declare void the decrees issued by the LRA is
a proper basis for filing the notice of lis pendens?
HELD:
No.
As decreed by Section 76 of PD 1529, a notice of lis pendens should contain
a statement of the institution of an action or proceeding, the court where the
same is pending, and the date of its institution. A notice of lis pendens
should also contain a reference to the number of the certificate of title of the
land, an adequate description of the land affected and its registered
Owner. The Register of Deeds denied registration of the notice of lis pendens
because "the application was bereft of the original petition or complaint upon
which this office will base its action."