Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Cagayan de Oro City

TWENTY-FIRST DIVISION

GERONIMO CALO, ROSARIO CA-G.R. CV NO. 80211-

SALVADOR AND SEMACO SACMAR, MIN
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Members:

- versus - BORJA, J., Chairman,

LLOREN, &
HERNANDO, JJ.

HEIRS OF DELFIN QUIETA, Promulgated:

REPRESENTED BY NILA C. QUIETA,
JOSE MORDENO AND JARDIN October 19, 2010
VITALEZ,
Defendants-Appellants.

DECISION

LLOREN, J.:

This appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court assails the

Decision1 dated 23 April 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, of
Butuan City, in Civil Case No. 2957. Its dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing

circumstances, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Declaring that the plaintiffs have valid title to

their respective lands, in question, including

1
Rollo, p.99. Penned by Hon. Victor A. Tomaneng
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 2 of 19
Decision

the overlap portions, by preponderance of

evidence and supported by Transfer Certificate
of Title No. RT-2363, in the name of Geronimo
Calo, RT-12530 in the name of Rosario A.
Salvador and RT-12529 in the name of Semaco
Sacmar;

2. Declaring that the judgment in Sp Proceeding

No. 2174 unenforceable as against plaintiffs
and the Transfer Certificate of Title issued to
defendants as a result thereof has no binding
effect as against plaintiffs;

3. Ordering defendant Delfin Quieta to turn over

possession of portion of Lot 373-F-3-B-3B
(LRC), Psd-234283 of Semaco P. Sacmar with
an area of 19 Sq. m. overlapped by Lot 2,
(CLRC) PCS-13497 (TCT No. RT-12655) of
Delfin Quieta to Semaco P. Sacmar as well as
portion of Lot 373-E-3-B-3-B, (LRC) Psd-
234283 of Semaco P. Sacmar with an area of
21 sq. m. used by Delfin Quieta as private
road. (Exh. ―1‖);

4. Ordering defendant Delfin Quieta to turn over

possession of portion of Lot 1, (LRC) Pcs-
13499, (TCT No. 12655) with an area of 215 sq.
m. overlapping with Lot 373-E-3-C, (LRC) Psd-
152029 of Rosario A. Salvador to the latter.
(Exh. ―1‖);

5. Ordering defendants Violeta Jardin Vitalez and

Jose Mordeno to turn over possession of
portion of Lot 2, (LRC) Pls-13499 an area of
164 sq. m. overlapping with Lot 373-E-3-C,
(LRC), Psd-152029 of Rosario A. Salvador to
the latter, as well as portion of Lot 2, (LRC) Pcs-
13499 with an area of 236 sq. m. overlapping
with Lot 373-F-3-B-2-A, (LRC) Psd-234281 of
Geronimo Calo to the latter;

6. Ordering defendant or their successors to pay

jointly and severally the amount of Twenty-five
Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos as Attorney’s Fee
and Fifteen Thousand (P15,000.00) Pesos as
expenses for litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 3 of 19
Decision

The facts are extant in the records.

Appellee Geronimo Calo inherited from his parents a parcel of

registered land known as Lot 373-E located in Villa Kananga, Butuan
City, consisting of an area of 18,126 square meters, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-2363.2 The lot is specifically
described as follows:

―A parcel of land (Lot 373-E of the subdivision plan

(LRC) Psd-41367, being a portion of Lot 373, Butuan
Cadastre, (H-90118) LRC Cad. Record No. 321)

Bounded on the W., and N., points 4 to 6 Lot 373-

A of the subdivision plan; on the NE., points 6 to 1 by Lot
303, Butuan Cad. 84, (Ignacio Fortun (now) Maria Rosales
(formerly); on the S., points 1 to 2 by Proposed Road; and
points 2 to 3 by Lot 372, Butuan Cad. 84, Rosario Parham
(now) Sisenando Tolo (Formerly); and on the W., points 3
to 4 by Lot 373-D of the subdivision plan. Beginning at a
point marked ―1‖ on plan being S.27 deg. 22’E., 1426.73
m. from BLLM 22, Butuan Cad. 84;

On 23 December 1963, Geronimo, through his brother,

Bienvenido Calo, sold a portion of the lot to appellant Delfin Quieta,
described as follows:3

A portion of the above-described property

consisting of two (2) lots, or with a dimension of 20 x 20
m. each and with a total area of EIGHT HUNDRED
SQUARE METERS (800), more or less, otherwise known as
Block No. II, Lots No. 33 and 34 respectively of Manuel V.
Calo & Sons tentative subdivision, per sketch shown at
the back of this document. (Emphasis ours)

2
Records, p.7
3
Id.,p.11
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 4 of 19
Decision

On that same day, Geronimo sold another portion of his land to

Felix Cortel described as Block No. II, Lot No. 32, with an area of 400
square meters.4

Delfin registered the lot with the Registry of Deeds of Butuan for
which he was issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4934 on 18
April 1969. Lot Nos. 33 and 34 were now known as Lot 373-E-1.5

Felix also registered the lot and he was issued Transfer

Certificate of Title No. RT-6414 on 26 April 1971. The property was
known as Lot 373-E-2.6 Thereafter, Felix sold the lot to Delfin on 19
September 1973.7

Sometime in June 1971, Geronimo, through Engr. Federico

Lamigo, informed Delfin that his lot had been traversed by the Montilla
Boulevard extension.8

Delfin, through Engr. Mariano Maglines, conducted a relocation

survey on his property – Lot Nos. 373-E-1 and Lot 373-E-2, on 14 and
15 September 1971.9 Delfin claims that the technical description
provided in his titles were erroneous because under the new relocation
survey, the technical description of the lots did not match with the
technical description in TCT Nos. RT-4934 and RT-6414. He then
submitted the relocation survey to the Land Registration Commission
for approval.

4
Id.,p.16
5
Id.,p.14
6
Id.,p.17
7
Id.,p.18
8
Rollo, p.73.
9
Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 5 of 19
Decision

Subsequently, Delfin filed before the Regional Trial Court,

Branch 1, of Butuan City, a petition for correction of technical
description of his property in TCT Nos. RT-4934 and RT-6414 to
conform to the technical descriptions under the relocation survey of
Engr. Maglines. The case was docketed as Special Proceeding No.
2174.10

On 3 April 1979, the trial court scheduled the hearing of the

petition on 15 May 1979 and directed that copies of the petition and
its annexes be sent to the Office of the Solicitor General, Land
Registration Commission, City Fiscal and Register of Deeds. The trial
court also ordered the sheriff to post copies of the petition on the
bulletin board of the Provincial Capitol and the City Hall of Butuan.
These Orders were complied with.11

On April 30, 1979, the Land Registration Commission directed

Delfin to submit the original and duplicate copies of the technical
descriptions of Lot Nos. 373-E-1 and 373-E-2, (LRC) Psd-102228; the
original and duplicate copies of the technical descriptions of Lot Nos. 1
& 2, (LRC) Pcs-13499; and the original and duplicate copies of the
technical descriptions of Lot Nos. 373-E-1 & 373-E-2, (LRC) Psd-
101684. The Commission expressly stated in the letter that the action
on the petition shall be suspended until Delfin submits the required
documents.12

Meanwhile, on 14 May 1979 Geronimo sold two portions of his

land separately to Rosario Salvador and Semaco Sacmar, with areas of

10 Id.,p.73
11 Records, p.429
12 Id.,p.467
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 6 of 19
Decision

1,082 and 1,342 square meters, known as Lot 373-E-3-C and Lot 373-
E-3-B-3-B, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. RT-12530
and 12529, respectively.

Despite the order of suspension by the Land Registration

Commission, the trial court proceeded with the hearing of the case.
Finally, on 15 May 1979, the trial court issued an Order granting the
petition for correction of the technical descriptions of TCT Nos. RT-
4934 and 6414 pursuant to Section 112 of Act 496 and directed the
Registry of Deeds to make the necessary corrections in the two titles
using the technical descriptions prepared by Engr. Maglines on 14 and
15 September 1971.13

On 25 May 1979 Quieta submitted before the trial court the

duplicate copies of the technical descriptions of Lot Nos. 373-E-1 and
373-E-2, (LRC) Psd-102228; duplicate copies of the technical
descriptions of Lot Nos. 1 & 2, (LRC) Pcs-13499; and duplicate copies
of the technical descriptions of Lot Nos. 373-E-1 & 373-E-2, (LRC)
Psd-101684. He failed to submit the original documents as required by
the Land Registration Commission.14

The documents were forwarded to the LRC only on 30 May 1979

or after the trial court issued the Order of correction.15

13
Id.,p.425
14
Id.,p.469
15
Id.,p.470
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 7 of 19
Decision

When Geronimo learned of the petition for correction, he

immediately filed a motion for intervention claiming that he was not
notified of the hearing of the case on 15 May 1979. He argued that the
trial court should have notified him considering that he was prejudiced
by the order of the trial court since it significantly reduced the area of
his property.

Delfin opposed that motion contending that Geronimo has no

more interest on the property because he already sold his lot to him,
therefore, he was not entitled to any notice of the hearing of the
petition. He further argued that the motion for intervention was not
seasonably filed since the Order dated 15 May 1979, which granted
the petition for correction of the technical description of the property,
had long become final and executory.

On 20 August 1984, the trial court in Special Proceeding No.

2174 denied the motion for intervention.16

Relentless, Geronimo referred the incident to the lupong

barangay for conciliation, but to no avail. A certification to file action
was issued on 4 June 1985.17

Consequently, Geronimo filed on 7 June 1985 a complaint for

quieting of title, recovery of possession, cancellation and annulment of
transfer certificate of title, injunction and damages before the Regional

16
Id.,p.427
17
Id.,p.465
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 8 of 19
Decision

Trial Court of Butuan City against Delfin, Jose and Violeta. The case
was docketed as Civil Case No. 2957.18

In their answer, Delfin, Jose and Violeta denied the allegations

in the complaint. They claim that the technical description of the
property mentioned in the deed of sale, complaint and Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 4934 (now RT-12655) were erroneous and had
been corrected by the trial court in Special Proceeding No. 2174. Delfin
admits the due execution of the deed of sale dated 23 December 1963
but denies the correctness of the technical description on the Transfer
Certificate of Title No. RT-6414 (now RT-17085) of the complaint. It
was already corrected pursuant to the order of the court in Special
Proceeding No. 2174.

Delfin further contends that long before the construction of the

Montilla Boulevard, he had been in possession of the property; that
the survey plan conducted by his surveyors conformed to the actual
location of the portion of the lot he bought from Geronimo, which were
duly approved by the Land Registration Commission.

Delfin further claims that the decision of the trial court in

Special Proceeding No. 2174 regarding the correction of the technical
description of the property had long become final and executory.
Geronimo’s action is already barred by a prior judgment and
prescription since the Deed of Sale was signed by the parties in 1963
and the judgment in Special Proceeding No. 2174 was issued on 15
May 1979, more than four years had lapsed from the filing of the
present case; and that the cancellation and annulment of certificate of

18
Id.,p.1
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 9 of 19
Decision

title cannot be made without first annulling the judgment rendered in

Special Proceeding No. 2174; and the cause of action for the
annulment of said judgment has likewise prescribed.19

Trial ensued.

After considering the evidence of the parties, the trial court ruled
in favor of Geronimo. The salient points of the assailed Decision read:

Although there are several issues to be threshed

out in this case, the most vital issue is that when lands
described and embraced in the Certificate of Title asserted
by both parties overlap each other, who as between the
parties is entitled to the overlapped portion?

It is the contention of defendants that inasmuch as

the order of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial
Court), Branch I in Special Proceeding No. 2174 dated
May 15, 1979 had already become final and executory and
was in fact executed by the issuance of RT No. RT 12655
in the name of Delfin Quieta and TCT No. RT-1778 in the
name of Delfin Quieta and Violeta Jardin, the same can no
longer be reversed or overturned nor reviewed by a
decision of another court of equal jurisdiction.

Section 112 of Act No. 496 (now Section 108 of

P.D. 1529) permits the correction of errors in the technical
description of lands covered with a certificate of title xxx
provided that the original decree of registration be not
thereby reopened xxx and the ―title or other interest of a
purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith‖
be not thereby impaired xxx.

Upon the record and evidence, it is beyond doubt

that the lands described and embraced in the certificate of
title asserted by plaintiffs and defendants overlap each
other. The overlapping is a result of the alteration of
technical description in TCT No. RT-4934 and RT-6414
pursuant to the Court Order dated May 15, 1979 in SP
Proceeding No. 2174.

19
Id.,pp.29-34
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 10 of 19
Decision

Third paragraph of the Court Order dated August

20, 1984 in SP Proceeding No. 2174 is herein quoted as
follows: (Record, pp. 427,428)

―Delfin Quieta, the petitioner in the

above-entitled case, through his counsel,
filed an opposition to the Motion for
Intervention. He alleged that Geronimo Calo
has already sold the parcels of land subject
of the petition of Quieta for correction of the
technical description and as such, he has
no more interest over the property and
therefore not entitled to any notice of the
hearing of the petition.‖

It is clear then, as above-mentioned order dated

August 20, 1984 in SP Proceeding No. 2174 that the
alteration of technical description in RT Nos. 4934 and RT
6414 was done without the knowledge of the adjoining
landowners, hence, the same is contrary to the provision
of Section 108 of P.D. 1529.

Special Proceeding No. 2174 has been initiated for

the correction of the technical description of RT NO. RT-
4934 and RT 6414 but in so doing the technical
description was completely replaced with a new one
resulting in the overlapping of plaintiffs’ and defendants’
lands. Although TCT No. RT NO. 6414 was cancelled and
in lieu thereof, TCT No. RT 17805 was issued in the name
of Delfin Quieta and Violeta Jardin Vitalez on June 6,
1984, TCT NO. RT-2363 in the name of Geronimo Calo
and RT No. 12530 in the name of Rosario A. Salvador and
RT 12529 in the name of Semaco Sacmar, both issued on
May 14, 1979 were not cancelled, hence, the titles of
plaintiffs and defendants all exist.

Generally accepted is the principle that no man

shall be affected by any proceedings to which he is a
stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by
judgment rendered by the court xxx.

Inasmuch as the plaintiffs were not made parties

to SP Proceeding No. 2174, neither notified of its
proceedings, they are not bound by the judgment rendered
therein, hence, said judgment is unenforceable as against
plaintiffs and the certificate of title issued to defendants as
a result of said judgment has no binding effect as against
plaintiffs.

Moreover, when two certificates of title are issued

to different persons covering the same land in whole or in
part, the earlier in date must prevail, and in case of
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 11 of 19
Decision

successive registrations where more than one certificate is

issued over the land, the person holding a prior certificate
is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a
subsequent certificate. (Margolles vs. CA 230 SCAR (sic)
1997)

Unsatisfied, Delfin now appeals to this Court ascribing a litany

of errors, which can be summarized as follows: 1) whether or not
Geronimo’s complaint is barred by res judicata; if not, 2) whether or
not the case is a collateral attack on the judgment in Special
Proceeding No. 2174; and 3) whether or not the trial court erred in
declaring that the judgment in special proceeding no. 2174 is
unenforceable against appellees.

We will resolve the issues jointly as they are interrelated.

Delfin argues that the issue of the correctness and accuracy of

the technical description embodied in TCT No. RT-4934 (now RT-
12655) and TCT No. RT-6414 (now RT-17778) had already been
determined with finality by the then Court of First Instance of Agusan
del Norte and Butuan City in its Order dated 15 May 1979 in Special
Proceeding No. 2174. Hence, the trial court violated the basic principle
of res judicata when it disregarded the said Order ruling that appellees
have a better right over the disputed portion of the properties than
appellants.

We disagree.

The rule of res judicata forbids the reopening of a matter once

judicially determined by competent authority. It is grounded on
fundamental considerations of public and sound practice that at the
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 12 of 19
Decision

risk of occasional error, the judgments of courts must become final at

some definite date set by law. After the judgment has become final,
nothing can be done therewith; otherwise there can be no end to
litigation, thus setting at naught the main role of courts, which is to
assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of
peace and order, by settling controversies with finality.20

Res judicata has dual aspects, "bar by prior judgment" and

"conclusiveness of judgment." Section 47, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules
of Court provides in part:

SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. — The

effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court or
judge of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce
the judgment or order, may be as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is,

with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any
other matter that could have been raised in relation
thereto, conclusive between the parties and their
successors in interest by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action of special proceeding,
litigating for the same thing and under the same title and
in the same capacity; and

(c) In any other litigation between the same parties

of their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have
been adjudged in a former judgment which appears upon
its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually
and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

Section 47 (b) enunciates the first concept of res judicata known

as "bar by prior judgment," whereas, Section 47 (c) is referred to as
"conclusiveness of judgment."

20
Moraga vs. Somo, G.R. No. 166781. September 5, 2006.
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 13 of 19
Decision

In this case, Delfin invokes the first concept of res judicata - bar
by prior judgment.

There are four (4) essential requisites which must concur in

order for res judicata as a "bar by former judgment" to apply, viz:

1. The former judgment must be final;

2. It must have been rendered by a court having

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties;

3. It must be a judgment or order on the merits;

and
4. There must be between the first and second
action identity of parties, identity of subject
matter, and identity of causes of action."21

Here, there is no res judicata – bar by a former judgment,

because the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Agusan del Norte and
Butuan City, failed to acquire jurisdiction over Geronimo in Special
Proceeding No. 2179. The records show that Geronimo was never
notified of the hearing scheduled by the CFI of Agusan del Norte and
Butuan City on 15 May 1979. We quote the pertinent portion of the
CFI’s Order dated 20 August 1984, to wit:

It may be recalled that on March 20, 1979, Delfin

S. Quieta filed a petition for the correction of the technical
description of TCT No. RT-4943 and TCT No. RT-6414. In
his petition, he alleged that the technical description of
these two certificates of title were based on an erroneous
survey conducted by Engr. Eufemio J. Encarnacion which
was later corrected by a consolidation survey conducted
by Engr. Mariano Maglines, duly approved by the Land
Registration Commission.

Acting on this petition, this court issued an order

on April 3, 1979, setting the hearing of the petition on May

21
San Pedro vs. Binalay, G.R. No. 126207, August 25, 2005.
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 14 of 19
Decision

15, 1979. The court further ordered that copies of the

petition and its annexes and the order itself be
furnished the Solicitor General, Commissioner of Land
Registration, City Fiscal, Register of Deeds and the
copies of the order be posted on the bulletin board at
the Provincial Capitol and the City Hall of the City of
Butuan. This order was complied with. (Emphasis Ours)

It is clear that Geronimo was not among those persons

furnished with a copy of the court’s Order of notice of hearing and
petition. This is even confirmed by appellant Delfin himself in his
opposition, which reads:

Delfin Quieta, the petitioner in the above-entitled

case, through his counsel, filed an opposition to the
Motion for Intervention. He alleged that Geronimo Calo
has already sold the parcels of land subject of the petition
for correction of the technical description and as such, he
has no more interest over the property and therefore not
entitled to any notice of the hearing of the petition; that he
merely complied with the Order of this Court dated April
3, 1979, as to the persons or offices that should be
furnished copies of the notices of hearing scheduled on
May 15, 1979; xxx

Contrary to Delfin’s claim, Geronimo is entitled to notice of

hearing because he is a real party interest22 in this case. Section 108
of Presidential Decree No. 1529, on which Delfin based his petition for
correction of title, explicitly provides that a party in interest is entitled
to a notice of hearing, to wit:

Section 108. Amendment and alteration of

certificates. No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be
made upon the registration book after the entry of a
certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the
attestation of the same by Register of Deeds, except by
order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered
owner or other person having an interest in registered

22
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or
the party entitled to the avails of the suit. And by real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as
distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.
(Shipside Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143377. February 20, 2001.)
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 15 of 19
Decision

property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with

the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration,
may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that
the registered interests of any description, whether vested,
contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the
certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new
interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or
been created; or that an omission or error was made in
entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on
any duplicate certificate; or that the same or any person
on the certificate has been changed; or that the registered
owner has married, or, if registered as married, that the
marriage has been terminated and no right or interests of
heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a
corporation which owned registered land and has been
dissolved has not convened the same within three years
after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground;
and the court may hear and determine the petition
after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the
entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or
cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant
any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring
security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper;
Provided, however, that this section shall not be construed
to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or
decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or
ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other
interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and
in good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their
written consent. Where the owner's duplicate certificate is
not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided
in the preceding section.

All petitions or motions filed under this Section as

well as under any other provision of this Decree after
original registration shall be filed and entitled in the
original case in which the decree or registration was
entered. (Emphasis Ours)

Geronimo has an interest in this case because he is an adjoining

or adjacent owner of the disputed lots. Normally, the adjacent or
adjoining owners are affected because a correction of a lot’s technical
description involves alteration of boundaries or land areas which may
result to overlapping or encroachment upon the adjoining or adjacent
owner’s property. This is what happened here. The corrected technical
description of the disputed lots as embodied in TCT No. RT-4934 (now
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 16 of 19
Decision

RT-12655) and TCT No. RT-6414 (now RT-17778) overlapped or

encroached upon certain areas of Geronimo’s property, which is
prejudicial to him considering that he was not given his day in court.

Clearly, the trial court was justified in ruling that the Order
dated 15 May 1979 is unenforceable against appellees who were not
made parties to Special Proceeding No. 2179. As eloquently discussed
by the trial court in its Decision:

Generally accepted is the principle that no man

shall be affected by any proceedings to which he is a
stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by
judgment rendered by the court xxx.

Inasmuch as the plaintiffs were not made parties

to SP Proceeding No. 2174, neither notified of its
proceedings, they are not bound by the judgment rendered
therein, hence, said judgment is unenforceable as against
plaintiffs and the certificate of title issued to defendants as
a result of said judgment has no binding effect as against
plaintiffs.

This same principle was applied by the Supreme Court in the

case of Heirs of Pael vs. Court of Appeals:23

The trial court's decision was not only erroneous

but was void from the beginning as the title was given to
the Paels despite the fact that they were not parties and
have been total strangers to the said case. They were
never impleaded nor did they intervene in the case
wherein the disputed property was awarded to them. xxx
The trial court's decision, insofar as it reinstated the title
of the Paels, cannot be enforced, consistent with the rule
enunciated by the Supreme Court in the following cases: A
person not included as a party to a case cannot be bound
by the decision made by a court. A person who was not
impleaded in the complaint could not be bound by the
decision rendered thereon for no man shall be affected by
a proceeding to which he is a stranger. Generally accepted
is the principle that no man shall be affected by any

23
G.R. No. 133547. February 10, 2000.
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 17 of 19
Decision

proceeding to which he is a stranger and strangers to a

case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court.

Another reason why the CFI’s Order in Special Proceeding

No.2179 is not binding against Geronimo is the failure of Delfin to
comply with the last paragraph of Section 108 of Presidential Decree
No. 1529, viz.:

All petitions or motions filed under this Section as

well as under any other provision of this Decree after
original registration shall be filed and entitled in the
original case in which the decree or registration was
entered.

The last paragraph above provides that a petition for correction

shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree of
registration was entered. The jurisdiction to entertain the petition lies
with the Land Registration Court which heard and decided the
voluntary registration proceedings.24 The rule aims to prevent
confusion and to avoid difficulty in tracing the origin of entries in the
registry.25

Here, Delfin failed to show that the petition for correction of

entry was filed with the land registration court which heard and
decided the voluntary registration proceedings of the disputed lots.

Accordingly, the Order dated 15 May 1979 of the CFI in Special

Proceeding No. 2179 is null and void considering that it was issued
without due process of law and for non-compliance with Section 108 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529. A void judgment is, in contemplation of

24
Life Homes Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120827. February 15, 2007.
25
Noblejas, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1986 ed., p. 190.
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 18 of 19
Decision

law, non-existent and may be wholly disregarded. Such judgment may

be assailed any time, either directly or collaterally, by means of a
separate action, like in this case, or by resisting such judgment in any
action or proceeding whenever it is invoked. In fact, it is not necessary
to take any step to vacate or avoid a void judgment; it may simply be
ignored.26

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED

for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated 23 April 2003 is
AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

EDGARDO T. LLOREN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ROMULO V. BORJA RAMON PAUL L. HERNANDO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

26
Ancheta v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004.
CA-G.R. CV No. 80211 - MIN Page 19 of 19
Decision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

ROMULO V. BORJA
Associate Justice
Chairman, Twenty-First Division