Republic v. San Mateo et. al., G.R. No.

203560, November 10, 2014

Facts: Respondents filed before the RTC a Petition for Registration of Title over a 12,896 squaremeter parcel of land located in Ibayo, Napindan, Taguig City. They averred that the land used to
be owned by their grandfather and predecessor-in-interest, Leocadio as can be traced from Tax
Declaration (TD) No. 3659, issued in 1948. When Leocadio died, the property was inherited by his
three children, Crisanta, Amador, and Juanito. Both Juanito and Amador subsequently mortgaged
their share to Crisanta and her husband, and failed to settle their obligations. Thus, in 2000 and
2001, the respective widows of Juanito and Amador executed waivers of rights in favor of the
respondents, the heirs of Crisanta. Respondents then executed an extra-judicial settlement
among themselves.
The case was set for initial hearing. The concerned government agencies, as well as the owners
of the adjoining lots, were notified of the hearing. Moreover, the notice was posted in several
public places in Taguig City, and was published in Peoples Journal, Taliba and the Official Gazette.
Globe Steel Corporation (GSC), represented by Kenneth Yu (Yu), New Donavel Compound
Neighborhood Association, Inc. (NDCNAI), and the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA),
all registered their opposition to the petition. GSC contended that the application might have
encroached on its properties, because it owned the adjoining parcels of land. NDCNAI argued
that it had a better right of possession to apply for registration of ownership, because the lot
would have been unfit for human habitation, were it not for the fillings introduced by the
association to the lot. Moreover, its members, who are informal settlers, are the actual occupants
of the lot. LLDA, on the other hand, claimed that the petition should be denied because the lot is
located below the reglementary lake elevation of 12.50 meters, and, thus, the lot forms part of
the Laguna Lake bed, and is considered inalienable and indisposable public land, and within the
jurisdiction of the LLDA.
On July 25, 2008, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) filed a report and adjusted the area of the
property to 12,776 square meters, to rectify a discrepancy in the technical description.
Issue: Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over the case?
Ruling: YES. The Supreme Court ruled that the CA correctly held that the RTC properly acquired
jurisdiction over the res, i.e. the subject property. As the CA found, the names of the owners of
the adjoining lots were indicated in respondents Amended Petition on April 28, 1999, and these
persons have been properly notified of the proceedings. Moreover, there was proper publication
of the Notice of Initial Hearing, along with the technical description of the property. Given that
this is an action in rem, the publication of the notice is sufficient notice to all claimants to the
property.
As held in Republic v. CA and Heirs of Luis Ribaya: only where the original survey plan is
amended during the registration proceedings, by the addition of land not previously
included in the original plan, should publication be made in order to confer
jurisdiction on the court to order the registration of the area added after the
publication of the original plan. Conversely, if the amendment does not involve an
addition, but on the contrary, a reduction of the original area that was published, no
new publication is required.
The amendment of the area was not a result of any substantial amendment in the property to be
covered by the petition for registration, but was done merely to conform to the cadastral
mapping of Taguig.
Beckett v. Judge Sarmiento, Jr., .A.M. No. RTJ-12-2326 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No.113692-RTJ), January 30, 2013
Facts: Geoffrey (Australian) married Eltesa (Filipina) and had a child, Geoffrey Jr. Their marriage
did not last long and charges and counter-charges were filed. Eltesa filed a case against Geoffrey
for violation of RA 7610, as well as a civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage. Geoffrey, on
the other hand, filed a case for adultery against Eltesa.
In CEB-32254, Judge Olegario Sarmiento Jr., rendered a judgment based on compromise
agreement which provided that Geoffrey shall have custody of the child, subject to the visitation
rights of Eltesa. They agreed to withdraw the case they filed against each other and Geoffrey
also agreed to visit Eltesa every year in Cebu, bringing their son with him. Thus, Geoffrey
brought his junior to Australia, where all his other children live. They visited Eltesa every year

starting 2007. During the 2010 visit, Geoffrey agreed to leave their son with Eltesa, provided she
return him to her by January 9, 2011. Because Eltesa did not comply with her promise, Geoffrey
filed a case against her for violation of RA 7610. And a petition for issuance of writ of habeas
corpus, which fell on the sala of Judge Sarmiento.
Geoffrey later on filed a case against Judge Sarmiento making him liable, among others, for gross
ignorance of the law, when he gave provisional custody of Geoffrey Jr to Eltesa, despite the fact
that there is already a judgment based on compromise agreement wherein Geoffrey was
awarded custody over his son.
Judge Sarmiento denied all the allegations. Sarmiento deferred judgment on Geoffreys motion to
await the report of the social worker who conducted the case study report and subsequently
denied complainants motion for reconsideration upon receipt of the report which recommended
that Geoffrey Jr stay with his mother. The reports noted that (1) complainant always leaves him
(Geoffrey Jr) to the care of his older half-brother or his fathers girlfriends; (2) he was at one time
sent out of the house by one of complainants girlfriends and he had to stay in the garage alone;
and (3) he never wanted to stay with complainant whom he feared and who once locked him in
his room without food. In their respective reports, Dr. Obra and Dr. Saycon, a psychiatrist, both
strongly recommended that custody over Geoffrey, Jr. be given to Eltesa.
Issue: Should Judge Sarmiento be held liable for gross ignorance of the law, when he gave
provisional custody of Geoffrey Jr to Eltesa, despite the fact that there is already a judgment
based on compromise agreement over the custody of the son?
Ruling: NO. The SC held that Judge Sarmiento, in granting provisional custody over Geoffrey, Jr.
in favor of his mother, Eltesa, did not disregard the res judicata rule. The respondent Judge
merely exhibited fidelity to jurisprudential command to accord primacy to the welfare and
interest of a minor child.
The matter of custody is not permanent and unalterable. If the parent who was given custody
suffers a future character change and becomes unfit, the matter of custody can always be reexamined and adjusted. To be sure, the welfare, the best interests, the benefit, and the good of
the child must be determined as of the time that either parent is chosen to be the custodian.
(Espiritu v. Court of Appeals)
A custody agreement can never be regarded as permanent and unbending, the simple reason
being that the situation of the parents and even of the child can change, such that sticking to the
agreed arrangement would no longer be to the latters best interest. In a very real sense, then, a
judgment involving the custody of a minor child cannot be accorded the force and effect of res
judicata. (Dacasin v. Dacasin)