Roxas vs.

Enriquez
(G.R. No. L-8539 December 24, 1914)
By: Tangonan, Julius

Doctrine:
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:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 certificate to it. During the various
hearings for such, the heirs of Don Enriquez objected to the same.

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.

Baranda vs. Gustillo

G.R. No. 81163
Facts:
 A petition for reconstitution of title was filed with the CFI (now RTC) of Iloilo involving a parcel of land known as
Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre covered by OCT No. 6406 in the name of Romana Hitalia.
 The OCT was cancelled and TCT No. 106098 was issued in the names of petitioners Baranda and Hitalia.

 The Court issued a writ of possession which Gregorio Perez, Maria P. Gotera and Susana Silao refused to honor
on the ground that they also have TCT No. 25772 over the same Lot No. 4517.
 The Court found out that TCT No. 257772 was fraudulently acquired by Perez, Gotera and Susana.

 Thereafter, the court issued a writ of demolition which was questioned by Perez and others so a motion for
reconsideration was filed.
 Another case was filed by Baranda and Hitalia (GR. NO. 62042) for the execution of judgement in the resolutions
issued by the courts.
 In the meantime, the CA dismissed a civil case (GR. NO. 00827) involving the same properties. (NOTE: This time
three cases na ang involve excluding the case at bar.)
 The petitioners prayed that an order be released to cancel No.T-25772. Likewise to cancel No.T-106098 and
once cancelled to issue new certificates of title to each of Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia To cancel No.T-
25772. Likewise to cancel No.T-106098 and once cancelled to issue new certificates of title to each of Eduardo S.
Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia.
 In compliance with the order or the RTC, the Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso annotated the order
declaring TCT T-25772 null and void, cancelled the same and issued new certificate of titles in the name of
petitioners.
 However, by reason of a separate case pending in the Court of Appeals, a notice of lis pendens was annotated
in the new certificate of title.
 This prompted the petitioners to move for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in the new certificates.

 Judge Tito Gustilo then ordered the Acting Register of Deeds for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens but
the Acting Register of Deeds filed a motion for reconsideration invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529.

Issue: What is the nature of the duty of a Register of Deeds to annotate or annul a notice of lis pendens in a torrens
certificate of title.

Held:
Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register
an instrument presented for registration dealing with real or personal property which complies with all the requisites for
registration. ... If the instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of
such denial in writing, stating the ground or reasons therefore, and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in
accordance with Section 117 of this Decree."

Section 117 provides that "When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or
memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to him for registration or
where any party in interest does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such
instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commission of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the
party in interest thru the Register of Deeds. ... ."

The function of ROD is ministerial in nature

The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds encumbrances, instruments and the like is
ministerial in nature. The respondent Acting Register of Deeds did not have any legal standing to file a motion for
reconsideration of the respondent Judge's Order directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the
certificates of titles of the petitioners over the subject parcel of land.

In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed ... or other instrument presented to him, he
should have asked the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration now, the Administrator of the National Land Title
and Deeds Registration Administration in accordance with Section 117 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

No room for construction for the laws on functions of ROD

The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal,
their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it
says. The statute concerning the

function of the Register of Deeds to register instruments in a torrens certificate of title is clear and leaves no room for
construction.

LILIA Y. GONZALES, petitioner, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and

RURAL BANK OF PAVIA, INC., respondents. G.R. No. L-69622 January 29,
1988

Facts

Lot No. 2161, the subject property in dispute was under the ownership of
Hortencia Buensuceso’s parents before it was sold in Public Auction to the
Province of Iloilo due to delinquency in the payment of the real estate taxes.
Years later, Hortencia discovered that the title of the property was still under the
name of her parents which prompted her to pay the back taxes resulting to the
execution of a Deed of Repurchase through the Provincial Treasurer followed by
the purchase of the property from her parent’s name to her own as provided for
in the new title. Later, the said property was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of
Pavia wherein she failed to pay the account. Consequently, a Certificate of Sale
was executed in favor of the bank.

Thereafter, Matias Yusay filed an action against the Buensuceso and the
bank seeking the annulment and cancellation of the title in the name of the
Hortencia and the issuance of a new title in favor of him as he alleged that the
land was originally mortgaged to him by the original owners way before the land
was sold in public auction. He claimed that the transaction between Buensuceso
and the bank is done in bad faith.

After the land was sold, Hortencia Buensuceso is already out of the picture
and the dispute is to be settled between the bank and the petitioner.

Issue

1. Whether or not the respondent bank acted in bad faith.

2. Whether or not the title is defective due prior engagement making the title
that follows as null and void.

Held
1. The answer is in negative, the bank acted in good faith. When the
certificate of title in the name of Hortencia Buensuceso was submitted to private
respondent bank for purposes of their loan application, it was free from any lien
and encumbrance. The mortgage was duly constituted and registered with the
Register of Deeds on May 28,1971. The ejectment case which was filed by
petitioner against the said spouses which petitioner claims should have put the
respondent bank on its guard was annotated at the back of the subject title only
on March 29,1973. There was therefore nothing on the face of the title of the
Hortencia Buensuceso which would arouse the suspicion of the respondent bank.
The certificate of title was in the name of the mortgagors when the land was
mortgaged by them to respondent bank. Such being the case, said respondent
bank, As mortgagee, had the right to rely on what appeared on the certificate of
title and, in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, was under no obligation
to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor
appearing on the face of said certificate.

2. The answer is in negative. It is well-settled that a Torrens Title cannot be

collaterally attacked. The issue on the validity of the title can only be raised in an
action expressly instituted for that purpose. A Torrens Title can be attacked only
for fraud within one year after the date of the issuance of the decree of
registration. Such attack must be direct and not by collateral proceeding. The
title represented by the certificate cannot be changed, altered, modified,
enlarged or diminished in a collateral proceeding.After one year from the date of
the degree, the sole remedy of the landowner whose property has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is not to set aside the
decree, but, respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to
review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for
reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value, for damages. The title of Asuncion Sustiguer was obtained
on February 26, 1971 while that of the Hortencia’s on March 3, 1971. The
complaint in this acto, was filed only on April 18, 1974, clearly more than one
year from the date of the decree of registration.

The decision of the lower court is affirmed.