#68 Roxas vs. Enriquez certificate to it.
certificate to it. During the various hearings for such, the heirs of Don Enriquez
(G.R. No. L-8539 December 24, 1914)
By: Tangonan, Julius
Doctrine:
1. Upon the publication and posting of the summons and its service upon and
mailing to the person, if any, upon whom it is herein directed to be specially
served, the court shall have full and complete jurisdiction over the plaintiff and
said property and of the person and every one claiming any estate, right, title,
or interest in or to or lien upon said property, or any part thereof, and shall be
deemed to have obtained the possession and control of said property, for the
purpose of the action, and shall have full and complete jurisdiction to render
judgment therein, which is provided for in the law
Facts:
1. On 12 Jan. 1906, petitioner Maria del Consuelo Felisa Roxas presented a
petition in the Court of Land Registration (CLR) to registere under the Torrens
system four parcels of land, known as Parcel A, Parcel B, Parcel C, and Parcel D,
all of which were located in the city of Manila.
2. The petition contained a statement of the names of the adjoining owners of
the land in question, Parcel A, as well as their addresses, and the heirs of
Antonio Enriquez.
3. After the examiner made a careful examination of the said land, he prepared a
report recommending the said parcels’ registration in the name of Roxas.
Accordingly, the clerk of the CLR sent a copy of the notice of hearing to each of
the persons mentioned in the Order of publication by registered mail. The clerk
also had the same published in a newspaper of gen. Circulation.
4. Later, Atty. Modesto Reyes, in behalf of the city of Manila, called the court’s
attention to the fact there was an alleged “error of closure” in the plan of
Parcel A, and asked the court to correct the same. However, no such correction
was ever made.
5. Due to the failure of the defendants to appear to impugn the application within
the period fixed by law, the court declared them in default and had Parcel A
registered as the absolute property of Roxas.
6. Roxas then sold Parcel A and all buildings thereon to the Masonic Temple Assoc
of Manila. The latter then requested the judge of the CLR to issue a new
objected to the same.
7. Notwithstanding, the CLR ruled in favour Roxas and the Monastic Temple. Still,
the objectors filed a motion for new trial on the ground that they had no notice
of the pendency of the original action to confirm the title of said property.
Issue: W/N the CLR erred when it did not give personal notice to each of the
appellants.
Ratio: NO
Held:
Contrary to the position of the appellants, personal notice was not absolutely
necessary in order to justify the court’s action of rendering a decree in favor of
Roxas. The Court stated that personal notice of the pendency of the original
petition had been given and that a publication of the same had been made in
accordance with the provisions of sections 31 and 32 of Act No. 496. After the
expiration of the period during which notice must be given, the original cause was
set down for hearing.
Furthermore, Section 32 (Act No. 496) provides that: "The court shall, so far as it
deems it possible, require proof of actual notice to all the adjoining owners and to
all persons who appear to have an interest in or claim to the land included in the
application." It will be noted also that the petitioner in registration cases is not by
law required to give any notice to any person.
Lastly, the proceedings for the registration of land, under Act No. 496, are in rem
and not in personam. 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 name to those outside of it. Jurisdiction is secured by
the power of the court over the res. Logically speaking, to require personal notice
to all possible claimants would impossible for how could personal notice be ever
given to “unknown claimants.”
Thus, in actions in rem, personal notice to owners of a res is not necessary to give
the courts jurisdiction to deal with and to dispose of the same, and meant that the
CLR did not err in registering the land in favor Roxas.