Finals Landti Gomez Vs Ca 1: Notes. - The Applicant Shoulders The Burden of Overcoming

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

FINALS LANDTI GOMEZ vs CA 1

No. L-77770. December 15, 1988 and not as administrative officials, and their act is the act of
ATTY. JOSE S. GOMEZ vs HON. COURT OF APPEALS the court. They are specifically called upon to “extend
assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land
Land Registration; The adjudication of land in cadastral or registration proceedings.”
land registration proceeding does not become final until
after the expiration of one (1) year after the entry of the final Same; Same; Same; Homestead patent; The case of
decree.—Petitioners’ contention is not correct. Unlike Government vs. Abran, not the “law of the case” since the
ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral lots in question were not private lands of Consolacion
or land registration proceeding does not become final, in the Gomez.—It is a settled rule that a homestead patent, once
sense of incontrovertibility until after the expiration of one registered under the Land Registration Act, becomes
(1) year after the entry of the final decree of registration. indefeasible and incontrovertible as a Torrens title, and may
This Court, in several decisions, has held that as long as a no longer be the subject of an investigation for determination
final decree has not been entered by the Land Registration or judgment in cadastral proceeding. The aforecited case of
Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year Government vs. Abran, therefore, is not “the law of the
has not elapsed from date of entry of such decree, the title is case”, for the lots in question were not private lands of
not finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration Consolacion M. Gomez when homestead patents were issued
proceeding continues to be under the control and sound over them in 1928-1929. There is sufficient proof to show
discretion of the court rendering it. that Lots 15, 16, 34 and 41 of Ipd-92 were already titled
lands way back in 1928 and 1929 as shown by Annexes “A”,
Same; Same; Judgment; The duty of respondent land “B”, “C”, and “D” of respondents’ Memorandum.
registration officials to render reports may extend even after
the court’s decision becomes final but not beyond the lapse Same; Same; Same; Action for Reconveyance; The
of one (1) year from the entry of the decree.—Petitioners petitioners may file a separate civil action for cancellation
contend that the report of respondent Silverio Perez should of titles and reconveyance in a court of ordinary civil
have been submitted to the court a quo before its decision jurisdiction.—Lastly, petitioners claim that if the decision of
became final. But were we to sustain this argument, we 5 August 1981 of the lower court is sustained, the homestead
would be pressuring respondent land registration officials to title holders may still vindicate their rights by filing a
submit a report or study even if haphazardly prepared just to separate civil action for cancellation of titles and for
beat the reglementary deadline for the finality of the court reconveyance in a court of ordinary civil jurisdiction.
decision. As said by this Court in De los Reyes vs. de Villa: Conversely, the same recourse may be resorted to by
“Examining section 40, we find that the decrees of petitioners. “(T)he true owner may bring an action to have
registration must be stated in convenient form for the ownership or title to land judicially settled, and if the
transcription upon the certificate of title and must contain an allegations of the plaintiff that he is the true owner of the
accurate technical description of the land. This requires parcel of land granted as free patent and described in the
technical men. Moreover, it frequently occurs that only Torrens title and that the defendant and his predecessor-in-
portions of a parcel of land included in an application are interest were never in possession of the parcel of land and
ordered registered and that the limits of such portions can knew that the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest have
only be roughly indicated in the decision of the court. In been in possession thereof be established, then the court in
such cases amendments of the plans and sometimes the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, without ordering the
additional surveys become necessary before the final decree cancellation of the Torrens title issued upon the patent, may
can be entered. That can hardly be done by the court itself; direct the defendant, the registered owner, to reconvey the
the law very wisely charges the Chief Surveyor of the parcel of land to the plaintiff who has been found to be the
General Land Registration Office with such duties true owner thereof.”
(Administrative Code, section 177).” Thus, the duty of
respondent land registration officials to render reports is not Notes. —The applicant shoulders the burden of overcoming
limited to the period before the court’s decision becomes the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms
final, but may extend even after its finality but not beyond part of the public domain. (Director of Lands vs.
the lapse of one (1) year from the entry of the decree. Furtillar, 142 SCRA 57.)

Same; Same; Same; Courts; The act of the respondent land The Director of Lands may still conduct an investigation
registration officials is the act of the court; Reasons.— after grant of homestead patent and issuance of title for the
Petitioners insist that the duty of the respondent land purpose of filing an action for reversion in court. (Nery vs.
registration officials to issue the decree is purely ministerial. Teves, 126 SCRA 90.)
It is ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of
the court and the decree must be in conformity with the
decision of the court and with the data found in the record, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
and they have no discretion in the matter. However, if they
are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under
issuance of the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the decision1 of the
the court. They act, in this respect, as officials of the court Court of Appeals dated September 30, 1996, in CA-G.R. SP
FINALS LANDTI GOMEZ vs CA 2
No. 40067, nullifying the decision and orders of the owners duplicate copies of TCT Nos. 10616 and 31856,
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City (Branch 10) in Civil Case covering the properties sold, to the plaintiffs within ten (10)
No. CEB-11103, for want of jurisdiction. days from the finality of the judgment, after which plaintiffs
shall pay in turn to the defendants the balance of
Civil Case No. CEB-11103 is an action for specific P2,000,000.00.Otherwise, the sale is rescinded and revoked
performance and/or rescission filed by herein Petitioners, and the defendants are directed to return to the plaintiffs the
spouses Fortunato and Aurora Gomez, against the heirs of amount of P500,000.00, with interest of 12% per annum
Jesus J. Trocino, Sr., which include herein respondents and computed from December 6, 1989, until the full amount is
their mother Caridad Trocino.2 paid.

Filed on December 16, 1991, the complaint alleges:Some In addition thereto, defendants are to pay jointly and
time in 1975, the spouses Jesus and Caridad Trocino severally to the plaintiffs, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
mortgaged two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 10616 damages; P20,000.00 as exemplary damages; P40,000.00 by
and 31856 to Dr. Clarence Yujuico.The mortgage was way of attorneys fees; and P10,000.00 as litigation expenses.
subsequently foreclosed and the properties sold at public
auction on July 11, 1988, and before the expiry of the SO ORDERED.5
redemption period, the spouses Trocino sold the property to
petitioners on December 12, 1989, who in turn, redeemed the Due to the defendants failure to deliver the owners duplicate
same from Dr. Yujuico.The spouses Trocino, however, of TCT Nos. 10616 and 31856, the RTC issued an order on
refused to convey ownership of the properties to Petitioners, August 29, 1995 declaring said titles null and void, and
hence, the complaint. ordering the Register of Deeds of Cebu City to issue new
titles in the name of herein petitioners.6
On January 10, 1992, the trial courts Process Server served Thereafter, or on March 13, 1996, respondents Adolfo and
summons on respondents, in the manner described in his Mariano Trocino filed with the Court of Appeals, a petition
Return of Service, to wit: for the annulment of the judgment rendered by the RTC-
Cebu (Branch 10) in Civil Case No. CEB-11103.Private
respondents alleged that the trial courts decision is null and
void on the ground that it did not acquire jurisdiction over
Respectfully returned to the Branch Clerk of Court, Regional their persons as they were not validly served with a copy of
Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 10, the herein attached original the summons and the complaint.According to them, at the
summons issued in the above-entitled case with the time summons was served on them, Adolfo Trocino was
information that on January 8, 1992 summons and copies of already in Ohio, U.S.A., and has been residing there for 25
the complaint were served to the defendants Jacob, Jesus Jr., years, while Mariano Trocino was in Talibon, Bohol, and has
Adolfo, Mariano, Consolacion, Alice, Racheal thru been residing there since 1986.They also refuted the receipt
defendant Caridad Trocino at their given address at Maria of the summons by Caridad A. Trocino, and the
Cristina Extension (besides Sacred Heart School for Girls), representation made by Atty. Bugarin in their
Cebu City, evidence by her signature found at the lower behalf.Respondents also contended that they have a
portion of the original summons.3 meritorious defense.7 Petitioners filed their
Comment/Answer to the petition.8
WHEREFORE I, respectfully return the original summons
duly served to the court of origin. On September 30, 1996, the Court of Appeals issued the
Cebu City, Philippines, January 10, 1992. assailed Decision granting the petition and annulling the
(signed) decision of the RTC-Cebu (Branch 10).The decretal portion
DELFIN D. BARNIDO of the decision reads:
RTC Process Server
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
On January 27, 1992, the defendants, through their counsel Cebu City, Branch 10, in Civil Case No. CEB-11103 as well
Atty. Expedito P. Bugarin, filed their Answer.Defendant as all Orders issued to implement the same are hereby
Caridad A. Trocino, respondents mother, verified said ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE.The Register of Deeds of
pleading.4 Cebu City is hereby ENJOINED from cancelling Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 10616 and 31856.No
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its decision on pronouncement as to costs.
March 1993, with the following disposition:
SO ORDERED.9
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the
Court of Appeals, petitioners filed the present petition,
The latter are hereby ordered to jointly and severally execute setting forth the following assignment of errors:
a Deed of Sale in favor of the plaintiffs and to deliver the
FINALS LANDTI GOMEZ vs CA 3
I.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING LACK defendant's office or regular place of business with some
OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF competent person in charge thereof.15 In substituted service,
RESPONDENTS TROCINO, REGARDING THE it is mandated that the fact of impossibility of personal
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE RTC OF CEBU CITY service should be explained in the proof of service.16
AND IN NOT DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR
VIOLATION OF SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR 04-94. When the defendant in an action in personam is a non-
resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the
II.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING authority of the court, personal service of summons within
THE NEED FOR PERSONAL AND/OR the State is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over his
EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS, person.This cannot be done if the defendant is not physically
DESPITE THE NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION present in the country, and thus, the court cannot acquire
BEING ONE IN REM. jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try
and decide the case against him.17 An exception was
III.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ANNULLING accorded in Gemperle vs. Schenker wherein service of
THE JUDGMENT, CAUSING FURTHER USELESS summons through the non-residents wife, who was a resident
LITIGATION AND UNNECESSARY EXPENSE ON of the Philippines, was held valid, as the latter was his
PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS, ESPECIALLY representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case filed
SINCE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY by the non-resident, and the second case was merely an
VALID DEFENSE AS GROUND FOR REVERSAL OF offshoot of the first case.18
JUDGMENT OF THE RTC.
Meanwhile, in actions in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction
IV.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to
THAT ITS JUDGMENT IS APPLICABLE IN FAVOR OF confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court
CARIDAD TROCINO.10 acquires jurisdiction over the res, although summons must be
served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the due process
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the requirements.19 Thus, where the defendant is a non-resident
action brought against him.Service of such writ is the means who is not found in the Philippines, and (1) the action affects
by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person.11 the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) the action relates to, or
Any judgment without such service in the absence of a valid the subject matter of which is property in the Philippines in
waiver is null and void.12 which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest; (3) the
action seeks the exclusion of the defendant from any interest
The resolution of the present petition hinges on the issue of in the property located in the Philippines; or (4) the property
whether or not summons was effectively served on of the defendant has been attached in the Philippines,
respondents.If in the affirmative, the trial court had validly summons may be served extraterritorially by (a) personal
acquired jurisdiction over their persons and therefore its service out of the country, with leave of court; (b)
judgment is valid. publication, also with leave of court; or (c) any other manner
the court may deem sufficient.20
To resolve whether there was valid service of summons on
respondents, the nature of the action filed against them must In the present case, petitioners cause of action in Civil Case
first be determined.As the Court explained in Asiavest No. CEB-11103 is anchored on the claim that the spouses
Limited vs. Court of Appeals, it will be helpful to determine Jesus and Caridad Trocino reneged on their obligation to
first whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in convey ownership of the two parcels of land subject of their
rem because the rules on service of summons under Rule 14 sale.Thus, petitioners pray in their complaint that the spouses
of the Rules of Court of the Philippines apply according to Trocino be ordered to execute the appropriate deed of sale
the nature of the action.13 and that the titles be delivered to them (petitioners); or in the
alternative, that the sale be revoked and rescinded; and
In actions in personam, summons on the defendant must be spouses Trocino ordered to return to petitioners their down
served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, payment in the amount of P500,000.00 plus interests.The
or, if he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him.This is action instituted by petitioners affect the parties alone, not
specifically provided in Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of the whole world.Hence, it is an action in personam, i.e., any
Court,14 which states: judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly
impleaded.21
SEC. 7. Personal service of summons.-- The summons shall
be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in Contrary to petitioners belief, the complaint they filed for
person or, if he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him. specific performance and/or rescission is not an action in
rem.While it is a real action because it affects title to or
If efforts to find defendant personally makes prompt service possession of the two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos.
impossible, substituted service may be effected by leaving 10616 and 31856, it does not automatically follow that the
copies of the summons at the defendant's dwelling house or action is already one in rem.In Hernandez vs. Rural Bank of
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion Lucena, Inc., the Court made the following distinction:
then residing therein, or by leaving the copies at the
FINALS LANDTI GOMEZ vs CA 4
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of Moreover, inasmuch as the sheriffs return failed to state the
personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the facts and circumstances showing the impossibility of
recovery of damages. In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the personal service of summons upon respondents within a
recovery of real property, or, as indicated in section 2(a) of reasonable time, petitioners should have sought the issuance
Rule 4, a real action is an action affecting title to real of an alias summons.Under Section 5, Rule 14 of the Rules
property or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or of Court, alias summons may be issued when the original
condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on, real summons is returned without being served on any or all of
property. the defendants.28 Petitioners, however, did not do so, and
they should now bear the consequences of their lack of
An action in personam is an action against a person on the diligence.
basis of his personal liability, while an action in rem is an
action against the thing itself, instead of against the person. The fact that Atty. Expedito Bugarin represented all the
Hence, a real action may at the same time be an action in respondents without any exception does not transform the
personam and not necessarily an action in rem.22 ineffective service of summons into a valid one.It does not
constitute a valid waiver or even a voluntary submission to
The objective sought in petitioners complaint was to the trial courts jurisdiction.There was not even the slightest
establish a claim against respondents for their alleged refusal proof showing that respondents authorized Atty. Bugarins
to convey to them the title to the two parcels of land that appearance for and in their behalf.As found by the Court of
they inherited from their father, Jesus Trocino, who was one Appeals:
of the sellers of the properties to petitioners.Hence, to repeat,
Civil Case No. CEB-11103 is an action in personam because While Caridad Trocino may have engaged the services of
it is an action against persons, namely, herein respondents, Atty. Bugarin, it did not necessarily mean that Atty. Bugarin
on the basis of their personal liability.As such, personal also had the authority to represent the defendant heirs.The
service of summons upon the defendants is essential in order records show that in all the pleadings which required
for the court to acquire of jurisdiction over their persons.23 verification, only Caridad Trocino signed the same.There
was never a single instance where defendant heirs signed the
A distinction, however, must be made with regard to service pleading.The fact that a pleading is signed by one defendant
of summons on respondents Adolfo Trocino and Mariano does not necessarily mean that it is binding on a co-
Trocino.Adolfo Trocino, as records show, is already a defendant.Furthermore, Caridad Trocino represented herself
resident of Ohio, U.S.A. for 25 years.Being a non-resident, as the principal defendant in her Motion to Withdraw
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and Appeal. (Rollo, p. 80)
validly try and decide the case against him.
Since the defendant heirs are co-defendants, the trial court
On the other hand, Mariano Trocino has been in Talibon, should have verified the extent of Atty. Bugarins authority
Bohol since 1986.To validly acquire jurisdiction over his when petitioners failed to appear as early as the pre-trial
person, summons must be served on him personally, or stage, where the parties are required to appear.The absence
through substituted service, upon showing of impossibility of of the defendant heirs should have prompted the trial court to
personal service.Such impossibility, and why efforts exerted inquire from the lawyer whether he was also representing the
towards personal service failed, should be explained in the other petitioners.As co-defendant and co-heirs over the
proof of service.The pertinent facts and circumstances disputed properties, the defendant heirs had every right to be
attendant to the service of summons must be stated in the present during the trial.Only Caridad Trocino appeared and
proof of service or Officers Return.Failure to do so would testified on her own behalf.All the defenses raised were her
invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional own, not the defendant heirs.29
grounds.24
Consequently, the judgment sought to be executed against
In the present case, the process server served the summons respondents were rendered without jurisdiction as there was
and copies of the complaint on respondents Jacob, Jesus, Jr., neither a proper service of summons nor was there any
Adolfo, Mariano, Consolacion, Alice and Racheal,25 waiver or voluntary submission to the trial courts
through their mother, Caridad Trocino.26 The return did not jurisdiction.Hence, the same is void, with regard to private
contain any particulars as to the impossibility of personal respondents except Caridad Trocino.
service on Mariano Trocino within a reasonable time.Such It must be pointed out that while it was the spouses Jesus and
improper service renders the same ineffective. Caridad Trocino who sold the properties to Petitioners, their
right to proceed against Jesus Trocino when he died was
Due process of law requires personal service to support a passed on to his heirs, which includes respondents and
personal judgment, and, when the proceeding is strictly in Caridad Trocino.Such transmission of right occurred by
personam brought to determine the personal rights and operation of law, more particularly by succession, which is a
obligations of the parties, personal service within the state or mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights
a voluntary appearance in the case is essential to the and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance
acquisition of jurisdiction so as to constitute compliance with of a person are transmitted.30 When the process server
the constitutional requirement of due process.27 personally served the summons on Caridad Trocino, the trial
court validly acquired jurisdiction over her person
FINALS LANDTI GOMEZ vs CA 5
alone.Hence, the trial courts decision is valid and binding
with regard to her, but only in proportion to Caridad
Trocinos share.As aptly stated by the Court of Appeals:
This Courts decision is therefore applicable to all the
defendant heirs with the exception of defendant Caridad
Trocino considering that it was the latter who entered into
the alleged sale without the consent of her husband.She is
therefore estopped from questioning her own authority to
enter into the questioned sale.Moreover, Caridad Trocino
was validly served with summons and was accorded due
process.31

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED.The


decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40067
is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

You might also like