FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 91486. January 19, 2001.]

ALBERTO G. PINLAC, ATTY. ERIBERTO H. DECENA, RODOLFO F.

REYES, FELIPE BRIONES, JUANITO METILLA, JR., FELIPE A. FLORES,
HERMINIO ELEVADO, NARCISO S. SIMEROS , petitioners, vs . COURT
OF APPEALS, ATTY. CORAZON A. MERRERA, ATTY. JEAN
MAKASIAR-PUNO, SERGIO ACABAN, represented by Atty. Ramon
Gerona, ATTY. ROGELIO VELASCO, MARTINA S. NONA, OVIDEO
MEJICA, ALFREDO ITALIA, MARIANO GUEVARRA, JESUS YUJUICO,
DOMINADOR RIVERA, SATURNINA SALES, represented by Atty.
Consolacion Sales-Demontano, FRED CHUA, SONIA SY CHUA,
LAWRENCE CHUA, CAROLINA C. RUBIO, represented by Tessie
Sebastian, GEORGE G. GUERRERO, BEATRIZ TANTOCO, represented
by Filomena Cervantes, ATTY. MARCELA CELESTINO-GARCIA,
FEDERICO GARCIA, ILDEFONSO MORALES, LEONCIA VELASCO,
OCRAVIO F. LINA, ANA MARIA JARAMILLO, ESTRELLA BASA, JOSE
ESTEVA, JR., CIRILO GONZALES, VILLY TOBIAS, MIGUEL DELA PAZ,
RUBEN GUILLERMO, FAUSTO YADAO, represented by Jeremias
Panlilio, RICARDO YAP, ROSAURO/PATRICK MARQUEZ, represented
by Emmanuel Marquez, MODESTA FABRIG and MAXIMINO
SALCEDA, MELIA LATOMBO, TERESITA PANGILINAN-RIVERO, ARCH.
DANILO C. DE CASTRO, JOSE S. LEDESMA, JAIME P. ANG, VICENTE
P. ANG, MAURO U. GABRIEL, ATTY. VIRGINIA GOMEZ, GIL S.
BONILLA, LOURDES BLANCO, represented by Catalina Blanco,
JOSEFA SANCHEZ and ROSALINA VILLEGAS, represented by Heidi
Bobis, SHIRLEY BUCAG, QUIRINA O. TUVERA, represented by
Wilfredo Orejuros, GREGORIO AVENTINO, represented by Enrico
Aventino, LEONARDO L. NICOLAS, NICOMEDES PENARANDA,
FRANCISCA MEDRANO, OFELIA IGNACIO, ROSENDO ABUBO,
represented by Santos Chavez, SOLEDAD BAUTISTA DE COLUMNA,
represented by Zenaida Valle, MARQUITA/SEBASTIAN LOPEZ,
represented by Emmanuel Marquez, DELIA DORION, GERARDO L.
SANTIAGO, FIDEL PANGANIBAN, represented by Manuel dela Roca,
MATEO and OFELIA INOVEJAS, REMEDIOS C. DOVAS, represented
by Josefa Capistrano, DOMINGO ALTAMIRANO and SPOUSES
ROLANDO ALTAMIRANO and MINERVA FETALVERO, BEATRIZ
RINGPIS, ROSARIO DE MATA, RUFINA CRUZ, represented by JOSEFA
MANABAT, SPOUSES ANITA SALONGA-CAPAGCUAN and MAYNARD
CAPAGCUAN, DISCORA YATCO, represented by VICTORINA Y.
FIRME, and CONSUELO YATCO, GENEROSA MEDINA VDA. DE
NOGUERA, represented by ATTY. RAYMUNDO M. NOGUERA,
BEATRIZ SALANDANAN and LOURDES ALONTE-VASQUEZ, PEDRO
COSIO and VICTORINA CARINO, RUTH C. ZARATE, PRECIOSISIMA V.
YAPCHULAY, BASILISA B. YAPCHULAY, OFELIA B. YAPCHULAY,
FELISA B. YAPCHULAY, FE B. YAPCHULAY, WILMA B. YAPCHULAY,
FELIX B. YAPCHULAY, MARIANO B. YAPCHULAY, GEN. ALFREDO
LIM, and other registered OWNERS OF VILAR-MALOLES (VILMA)
SUBDIVISION , respondents.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Bienvenido O. Comia, Igmidio C. Lat, and Roger E. Panotes for petitioners.
Merrera, Merrera & Merrera Law Office for private respondents.
Renato A. Taguiam for respondent M.S. Florendo & Sons Inc.
Manolito L. Asok for Movants Cacatian, et al.

SYNOPSIS

The present petition is rooted in an action for Quieting of Title led before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City by petitioners against herein respondents. The
disputed lot was allegedly part of an unclassi ed public forest land and yet covered by
transfer certi cates of title in the names of the respondents. Petitioners asserted
ownership over the disputed land alleging that they and their predecessors-in-interest have
occupied said property continuously, adversely, and exclusively for more than thirty (30)
years; and that they have accordingly led applications for land titling in their respective
names with the appropriate government agency. Since personal service of summons could
not be effected on respondent Vilar Maloles Subdivision (Vil-Ma) and some of the other
named respondents, petitioners moved for leave of court to serve summons by
publication, which was granted. Accordingly, the summons was published in the
"Metropolitan Newsweek", a periodical edited and published in the City of Caloocan and
Malolos, Bulacan. Some of the named respondents led their respectively responsive
pleadings, while the others, including Vil-Ma, failed to answer, and were thus declared in
default. After hearing, the trial court rendered a Partial Decision declaring respondents' title
null and void. SITCEA

On May 17, 1989, a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with Certiorari, Prohibition
a n d Mandamus was brought before the Court of Appeals by titled owners of the
subdivided lots within Vil-Ma. They claimed that the aforesaid Partial Decision against the
defaulted respondents was null and void on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and
extrinsic fraud. On November 15, 1989, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision, which
granted the petition. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.
The petition was denied for lack of merit. While the service of summons by
publication may have been done with the approval of the trial court, it does not cure the
fatal defect that the "Metropolitan News" is not a newspaper of general circulation in
Quezon City. The Rules strictly require that publication must be "in a newspaper of general
circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order." The court orders
relied upon by petitioners did not specify the place and the length of time that the
summons was to be published. In the absence of such speci cation, publication in just any
periodical does not satisfy the strict requirements of the rules. The incomplete directive of
t he court a quo coupled with the defective publication of the summons rendered the
service by publication ineffective. The modes of service of summons should be strictly
followed in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the respondents, and failure
to strictly comply with the requirements of the rules regarding the order of its publication
is a fatal defect in the service of summons. ECcTaS

Moreover, at the time the complaint for Quieting of Title was led on November 2,
1983, Vilar Maloles Subdivision no longer existed as a juridical entity. Consequently, it
could no longer be sued having lost its juridical personality. CHDaAE

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENT; ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT; GROUNDS. — An

action for annulment of judgment is grounded only on two justi cations: (1) extrinsic
fraud; and (2) lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. All that herein private
respondents had to prove was that the trial court had no jurisdiction; that they were
prevented from having a trial or presenting their case to the trial court by some act or
conduct of petitioners; or that they had been denied due process of law. Thus, the Court of
Appeals need only to resolve the issues of lack of jurisdiction, existence of extrinsic fraud,
and denial of due process of law. TEHDIA

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR LOST REMEDY OF APPEAL. — The action
for annulment of judgment cannot and was not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
The very purpose of the action for annulment of judgment was to have the nal and
executory judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation. Whether or not
the assailed Partial Decision based solely on facts and evidence presented by the
petitioners is meritorious is irrelevant and immaterial. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not
err, nor did it violate the petitioners' right to due process of law, when it refused to
consider all the factual issues raised by petitioners. HSCcTD

3. ID.; ID.; PARTIAL DECISION IS NULL AND VOID WHERE PARTIES CONCERNED
WERE NOT DULY SERVED SUMMONS; CASE AT BAR. — We also agree with the Court of
Appeals' conclusion that the Partial Decision is null and void insofar as private
respondents are concerned since the latter were not duly served summons or noti ed of
the proceedings against them. The summons and the Partial Decision were published in a
local newspaper edited and published in Caloocan City and Malolos, Bulacan. However, the
Court of Appeals found the publication in said newspaper, namely the "Metropolitan
Newsweek," to be invalid because the said periodical is not considered a newspaper of
general circulation in Quezon City where the subject property is located, as required by
Presidential Decree No. 1079, Section 1.
4. ID.; ID.; PARTIAL DECISION SHOULD BE ANNULLED WHERE PARTIES HAD
BEEN DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW. — It was also established that all the lots within the
subdivision had been disposed of to private individuals, herein private respondents. As the
titled owners, they should have been impleaded as party-respondents before the court a
quo. They were not made respondents, neither were they informed of the adverse
proceedings that would result in the nullification of their duly registered titles. Clearly, there
was a blatant disregard for their rights as registered owners. Private respondents' titles
and rights as owners have been unjustly violated. Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err in
granting private respondents' petition by annulling and setting aside the Partial Decision
rendered by the court a quo for lack of jurisdiction and for denial of due process of law.
5. ID.; ID.; JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT; GENERALLY LOOKED UPON WITH
DISFAVOR; REASON; REOPENING OF THE CASE, WARRANTED IN CASE AT BAR. — The
Partial Decision was a judgment by default, which is generally looked upon with disfavor,
for it cannot pretend to be based on the merits of the controversy. As in this case, the
judgment by default may amount to a positive and considerable injustice to private
respondents. Hence, justice and equity demand that this case be litigated anew. It is
evident that the reopening of the case would not amount to an exercise in futility nor is it
intended to further delay the nal resolution of this controversy. The court a quo should
give all the necessary parties every chance to ght their case fairly and in the open, without
resort to technicalities.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 6. ID.; DEFAULT; EFFECT OF PARTIAL DEFAULT; RULE VIOLATED WHERE TRIAL
COURT RECEIVED EVIDENCE EX PARTE ONLY AGAINST DEFAULTED PARTIES; CASE AT
BAR. — The conclusion that the Partial Decision of the court a quo is void nds support in
Rule 10, Section 5(c) of the then Rules of Court, which provides: "(c) Effect of partial
default. — When a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action against
several defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court
shall try the case against all upon the answers thus led and render judgment upon the
evidence presented." In fact, the court a quo enumerated in the Partial Decision those who
led responsive pleadings. Considering that petitioners in their complaint stated a
common cause of action against all the named respondents, the court a quo should have
heard the case as against all respondents, the defaulted respondents included. However,
the trial court, unmindful of the above-quoted rule, proceeded to receive evidence ex parte
only against the defaulted respondents. The trial court's disposition is not only violative of
the rules but also a clear negation of the defaulted respondents' limited rights.
7. ID.; ID.; DEFENSE AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY NON-DEFAULTED PARTIES
SHALL INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE DEFAULTED PARTIES; PARTIAL DECISION WAS
PROCEDURALLY FLAWED IN CASE AT BAR. — Whatever defense and evidence the non-
defaulted respondents may present which would be applicable to the situation of the
defaulted respondents should inure to the bene t of the latter. The nulli cation of OCT 614
adversely affected the answering respondents for they all share the same mother title. In
effect, the court a quo pre-judged the case even against the answering respondents, for
how could OCT 614, the mother title, be valid for one set of respondents and null and void
for the other respondents? In fine, the Partial Decision was procedurally flawed.
8. ID.; PLEADINGS AND PRACTICES; SUMMONS; MODES OF SERVICE; SERVICE
BY PUBLICATION; FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IS
A FATAL DEFECT. — While the service of summons by publication may have been done
with the approval of the trial court, it does not cure the fatal defect that the "Metropolitan
Newsweek" is not a newspaper of general circulation in Quezon City. The Rules strictly
require that publication must be "in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places
and for such time as the court may order." The court orders relied upon by petitioners did
not specify the place and the length of time that the summons was to be published. In the
absence of such speci cation, publication in just any periodical does not satisfy the strict
requirements of the rules. The incomplete directive of the court a quo coupled with the
defective publication of the summons rendered the service by publication ineffective. The
modes of service of summons should be strictly followed in order that the court may
acquire jurisdiction over the respondents, and failure to strictly comply with the
requirements of the rules regarding the order of its publication is a fatal defect in the
service of summons. It cannot be overemphasized that the statutory requirements of
service of summons, whether personally, by substituted service, or by publication, must be
followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any mode of service other than that prescribed by
the statute is considered ineffective.
9. CIVIL LAW; SPECIAL CONTRACTS; PARTNERSHIP; A DISSOLVED
PARTNERSHIP COULD NO LONGER BE SUED. — Be that as it may, even granting that the
publication strictly complied with the rules, the service of summons would still be
ineffective insofar as private respondents are concerned. At the time the complaint for
Quieting of Title was led on November 2, 1983, Vilma Maloles Subdivision no longer
existed as a juridical entity. Vilma Maloles Subdivision, a partnership, was dissolved more
than six (6) years earlier, as evidenced by a Certi cate of Dissolution issued by the SEC
dated January 26, 1976. Consequently, it could no longer be sued having lost its juridical
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 personality.
10. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; COURTS
WILL NOT COUNTENANCE A DENIAL OF THE RIGHT. — Petitioners failed to show that they
were the aggrieved parties. If ever there was denial of due process, it was private
respondents who suffered therefrom. Whether by petitioners' failure to effectively serve
summons or by omitting to name private respondents as respondents, the trial court's
Partial Decision declaring private respondents' titles null and void was clearly violative of
the due process requirement of the Constitution. It is elementary that before a person can
be deprived of his right or property he should rst be informed of the claim against him
and the theory on which such claim is premised. The courts will not countenance a denial
of the fundamental right to due process, which is a cornerstone of our legal system. CaSAcH

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p

The instant case springs from a contentious and protracted dispute over a sizeable
piece of real property situated in what is now known as Old Balara, Sitio Veterans, Barrio
Payatas and Silangan, all of Quezon City. There are numerous claimants, titled and untitled
alike, each either pressing to own a piece of it, or striving to protect one's right as a titled
owner.
Petitioners herein are World War II veterans, their dependents and successors-in-
interest. Together, they led a class suit primarily for Quieting of Title before the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 83, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-35672. In
particular, petitioners claimed that the real property, which has an aggregate area of 502
hectares, were part of forest lands belonging to the government; that they and their
predecessors-in-interest have occupied said property continuously, adversely, and
exclusively for more than thirty (30) years; and that they have accordingly led applications
for land titling in their respective names with the appropriate government agency.
While petitioners claim that the land in dispute was part of the public domain, they
named as respondents several persons and corporations who are titled owners of
subdivided parcels of land within the subject property. One of those so impleaded as a
party-respondent was the Vil-Ma Maloles Subdivision (hereinafter, Vil-Ma). The individual
lot owners of the said subdivision, however, were not speci cally named. Since personal
service of summons could not be effected on Vil-Ma and some of the other named
respondents, petitioners moved for leave of court to serve summons by publication which
was granted. Accordingly, the summons was published in the "Metropolitan Newsweek", a
periodical edited and published in the City of Caloocan and Malolos, Bulacan. 1
Some of the named respondents led their respective responsive pleadings, while
the others, including Vil-Ma, failed to answer, and were thus declared in default.
Consequently, petitioners were allowed to present evidence ex parte against the defaulted
respondents. The court a quo found the following facts to be conclusive:
(T)hat the case involves three parcel of lands, to wit: Lot 1 & 2 situated at
the Old Balara, Diliman, Quezon City and Lot 3 situated at Sitio Veterans, Barrio
Payatas and Silangan, Quezon City containing an aggregate area of 502 hectares
more or less; that Lot 1 is covered by TCT No. 5690 in the name of defaulted
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 respondent Jose V. Bagtas, which title emanated from TCT No. 48546 in the
name of Emiliana Vda. De Vera Cruz which contains an actual area of only 294.6
sq. meters, but, when said TCT No. 5690 was issued the same was illegally and
fraudulently expanded to cover 23.5767 hectares through fraudulent resurveys
without proper judicial proceedings; that on said illegally expanded area of TCT
No. 5690 in the name of respondent Jose V. Bagtas, more than 363 transfer
certi cates of title were subsequently issued including those belonging to some
of the defaulted respondents thereof; that TCT No. 5690 contains no technical
description on its face; that Lot 2 is covered by TCT No. 3548 in the name of
Eustacio Maloles married to Soledad Villegas and Vicente B. Vilar doing business
under the name and style of defaulted respondent Vilma Maloles Subdivision Inc.,
which title was derived from TCT No. 33531 in the name of Oscar L. Uy which in
turn came from TCT No. 26285 in the name of Maria Lim which was immediately
derived from OCT No. 614 which contains no technical description on its face,
that TCT No. 3548 likewise contains no technical description on its face; that
however, on the face of TCT No. 33531 of Oscar L. Uy from which TCT No. 3548
of defaulted respondent Vilma Maloles Subdivision Inc., was derived, it appears
that said TCT No. 33531 was cancelled by another title, TCT No. 1713 and not by
TCT No. 3548, the supposed derivative thereof, which title, from the foregoing
facts, seems to have come from nowhere considering that no document could be
produced by the representative of the Register of Deeds of Pasig, relative to the
origin of the aforesaid title and which register of deeds has jurisdiction over the
same; that from this spurious and fraudulent TCT No. 3548 which contains no
technical description on its face, numerous TCTs were subsequently issued, some
of which belong to the defaulted respondents hereof, that despite the issuance
has not been cancelled by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City; that Lot 3 was
originally covered by OCT No. 333 from which 846 questionable TCTs emanated
and issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City perpetrated and made
possible by the illegal expansion of the actual area thereof from 4,574 Sq. Meters,
more or less, to 407,3875 (sic) hectares without proper judicial proceedings; that
as an example of the fraud perpetrated by respondents, TCT No. 26205 covers a
lot situated at Barrio Ermitaño, San Juan del Monte, TCT No. 26287 covers a lot
located at Barrio Talipapa, Novaliches, TCT No. 33531 covers a lot located at the
District of Cubao. TCT No. 47705 covers a lot situated at Barrio San Francisco,
San Juan, TCT No. 133770 covers a lot located at San Bartolome, Caloocan City,
TCT No. 45741 covers a lot located at San Francisco del Monte, San Juan, TCT
No. 45636 covers a lot located at the municipality of San Juan, TCT No. 19-6370
covers a lot located at Kamuning District, TCT No. 188447 covers a lot located at
San Francisco del Monte with a different mother title, OCT No. 515, TCI No.
(22092) — 61850 covers a lot located at Tala Estate Caloocan City, TCT No.
14645 covers lot located at Kamuning District and TCT No. 14692 covers a lot
located at Bo. San Isidro, Caloocan City, yet these TCTs were utilized by some
people to claim an area located inside the litigated premises despite the fact that
their technical descriptions, as aforementioned, are different from the lands being
sought to be covered therewith; that Lots 1, 2 & 3 have been under the possession
of petitioners for a continuous, public, open, & uninterrupted period of 30 years
through World War II Veterans Legionnaires of the Philippines, Inc., by the
principle of tacking possession; that the Bureau of Forest Development has
certi ed that Lots 1, 2 & 3 are part of public forest belonging to the government
not yet certi ed for disposition and alienation; that the Bureau of Forest
Development knew and encouraged petitioner's occupancy and possession of
said lots as in fact ordinary residential permits were issued by said agency to
some of herein petitioners and even helped in petitioners' acquisition of electrical
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 facilities from the MERALCO. 2

Resolving the sole issue of whether or not petitioners were entitled to the land they
occupy and possess, even when said land was allegedly part of unclassi ed public forest
land and yet covered by transfer certi cates of title in the names of the defaulted
respondents, the court a quo rendered a Partial Decision in favor of petitioners, based on
the following disquisition: DHITCc

First, because as established from the foregoing facts, OCT No. 614, TCT
No. 5690, TCT No. 3548 covering Lots 1 & 2 of the disputed land, not having
technical descriptions appearing on their respective face, clearly are null and void
by reason thereof. This is because "a Torrens title is the certi cate of ownership
issued under the Register of Deeds naming and declaring the owner in fee simple
of the real property DESCRIBED therein, free from all liens and encumbrances
except such as may be expressly noted thereon or otherwise reserved by law."
(Philippine National Bank vs. Tan Ong Zse, 51 Phil. 317). Without any technical
description a title is ctitious and the mere issuance thereof is fraudulent. Such
being the case, it follows that none of the title holders subsequently issued out of
said void titles could say that he or she is an innocent purchaser for value. For in
the case at bar, there are really no rights that could be transferred to them since
even the titles of those supposed owners thereof originally are themselves
ctitious. . . . Second, because although the Bureau of Forest Development
maintains, as in fact, it certi ed that Lots 1, 2 & 3 are part of the unclassi ed
public forest land of the government, and therefore, are not susceptible of private
appropriation, still, due to the established fact that the lots involved are under the
present occupancy and possession of petitioners with the knowledge and
tolerance of the Bureau of Forest Development, the true and real nature of said
lands as being public forest has become highly dubious and in the opinion of this
Court could not overcome the presumption that said lands are agricultural. For
"the mere fact that a tract of land has trees upon it or has mineral wealth within it,
is not of itself su cient to declare that one is forest land and the other mineral
land. There must be some proof of the extent as well as of the present or future
value of the land as forest or mineral. It must be shown that the land is more
valuable for the forestry or the minerals which it contains than it is for agricultural
purposes. Land may be classi ed as forest or mineral today and after the
exhaustion of the timber or minerals contained therein may be classi ed as
agricultural land tomorrow. Hence, in case of doubt and considering that it is a
matter of public knowledge that a majority of the lands in the Philippines are
agricultural lands, it was rightly held that in the absence of evidence to the
contrary any land may be presumed to be agricultural." And that being the case, it
is clear that petitioners have acquired legally a title over Lots 1, 2 & 3 of this case
through extra-ordinary prescription of thirty (30) years of continuous, public, open
and uninterrupted possession thereof, the lands being agricultural and, thus, are
susceptible of private ownership by petitioners.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of
petitioners and against the defaulted respondents:
1) Declaring petitioners through the principal petitioners hereof, to wit:
Alberto G. Pinlac, Atty. Eriberto H. Decena, Rodolfo T. Reyes, Felipe Briones and
Juanito S. Metilla as absolute owners in fee simple title of the aforesaid Lots 1, 2
& 3 hereof by virtue of extra-ordinary prescription, with the exception of the lands
covered by the respective transfer certi cate of title belonging to the non-
defaulted respondents;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 2) Declaring Original Certi cate of Title No. 614, TCT No. 5690 and
TCT No. 3548 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and the subsequent TCTs
issued therefrom, with the exception of those titles belonging to the non-defaulted
respondents, as null and void ab initio;

3) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel OCT No.

614, TCT No. 5690 and TCT No. 3548 as well as the subsequent TCTs issued and
emanating therefrom, with the exception of those titles belonging to the non-
defaulted respondents, from its record;
4) Declaring the area of TCT No. 333 in excess of its true and actual
area of 4,574 Sq. Meters, as well as the TCTs subsequently issued by the Register
of Deeds of Quezon City, covering the area in excess of said actual area, with the
exception of those belonging to non-defaulted respondents, as null and void ab
initio;
5) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel all TCTs
subsequently issued based on OCT No. 333 in excess of the actual area of 4,574
Sq. Meters, with the exception of those titles belonging to the non-defaulted
respondents;
6) Declaring the writ of preliminary injunction dated August 7, 1985, in
so far as those areas covered by the cancelled OCTs and TCTs hereof are
concerned, as permanent;
7) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to issue herein
petitioners the corresponding individual transfer certi cate of titles upon proper
application made thereof.

SO ORDERED. 3

On May 17, 1989, or exactly one (1) year and fty-seven (57) days after the above-
quoted judgment by default was rendered, a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus 4 was brought before the Court of Appeals by the
titled owners of the subdivided lots within Vil-Ma. They assailed the default judgment
which nulli ed all their titles, arguing that the court a quo had no jurisdiction over them and
their respective titled properties. They also alleged that they only came to know of the
adverse judgment when petitioners sought the execution of the judgment by attempting to
dispossess some of the titled owners of the lots and making formal demands for them to
vacate their respective properties.
They likewise claimed that the Partial Decision against the defaulted respondents
was null and void on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, for the reasons
that:
(1) Civil Case No. Q-35672, while it was a petition to quiet title, was a
collateral proceeding, not a direct action attacking their duly registered
titles. Besides, a petition for cancellation of title can only be led by a
registered owner or a person having an interest in registered property, and
must be led in the original land registration case in which the decree of
registration was entered.
(2) They were never made parties to Civil Case No. Q-35672, nor were their
lots described in the complaint, published summons, and Partial Decision.
Named defendant was VIL-MA, a totally separate and independent entity
which had already ceased to exist way back in January of 1976. Moreover,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the summons, as well as the Partial Decision was not published in a
newspaper or periodical of general circulation. Thus, the defective service
of summons to said defendant did not place the individual lot owners
under the trial court's jurisdiction, nor are they bound by the adverse
judgment.
(3) They were denied due process of law as they were not given their day in
court. They should have been included as indispensable parties-
respondents in Civil Case No. Q-35672 since the petitioners therein were
seeking to annul their respective transfer certificates of title.
(4) Their duly registered titles cannot be defeated by the alleged adverse,
continuous and notorious possession of the petitioners since their titles are
indefeasible and cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession.
(5) If, indeed, the subject property is unclassi ed forest lands, it is not
capable of private appropriation. The court a quo is bereft of authority to
declare motu proprio that the subject property should be reclassi ed as
agricultural, not forest land.
(6) The trial court violated Section 3(c), Rule 10 of the Rules of Court which
provides that when some of several respondents fail to answer, "the court
shall try the case against all upon the answers thus led and render
judgment upon the evidence thus presented," whenever a complaint states
a common cause of action against several respondents. Accordingly, the
defense interposed by those who answer or appear to litigate the case
should inure to the benefit of even those who fail to appear or answer.
(7) The trial court cannot render null and void in the default judgment the
mother title (OCT No. 614), from which the petitioners' transfer certi cates
were derived, which the Supreme Court had already declared valid and
legal.

To impress upon the Court of Appeals that they have a meritorious defense and that
their petition was not intended to delay or frustrate the nal disposition of the case, the
titled owners cited the case of De La Cruz v. De La Cruz, 5 where the Supreme Court traced
the origins of OCT 614. It was held in that case, that:
. . . The Piedad Estate consists of a vast tract of land originally registered
on March 12, 1912 under Original Certi cate of Title No. 614 of the Register of
Deeds of the Province of Rizal in the name of the Philippine Government.
The Piedad Estate was one of the so-called friar lands which were
purchased by the government of the Philippines pursuant to the provisions of the
Friar Lands Act, Public Act No. 1120 which was enacted on April 26, 1904. . . .
As speci cally stated above, the said lands are not "public lands" in the
sense in which those words are used in the Public Land Act Numbered Nine
Hundred and twenty-six and cannot be acquired or leased under the provisions
thereof. In the case of Jacinto vs. Director of Lands (1926) 49 Phil. 853, the
Supreme Court held that the so-called friar lands, to which the government of the
Philippines holds title, are not public lands but private or patrimonial property of
the government.

xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 As held in Lorenzo vs. Nicolas, No. L-4085, 30 July 1952, 91 Phil. 686,
"from the provisions of sections 11, 12 and 16 of Act No. 1120, it is apparent that
the pervading legislative intent is to sell the friar lands acquired by the
government to actual settlers and occupants of the same. 6

Claiming that their individual transfer certi cates of title were derived from
subsequent subdivisions and transfers of the lots within the Piedad Estate, the defaulted
registered owners invoked the Comments and Recommendations of the Ad Hoc
Committee created by the then Ministry of Natural Resources, tasked to investigate the
historical background of the Piedad and Payatas Estates in Quezon City, containing
evidence which they would have substantiated had they been given their day in court. The
Ad Hoc Committee reported, to wit:
FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
The Piedad Estate, situated in the Municipality of San Mateo and Caloocan
during the time of registration in 1910, covers an area of 3850.7226 hectares. The
Registration of Title under Case No. 5975 was published in the January 21, 1910
issue of the Official Gazette.

After the Piedad Estate was registered in Original Certi cate of Title No.
614 in the name of the Government in 1910 under the provisions of Act 496, the
area was subdivided originally into 874 lots. As a result of subsequent surveys
executed in the course of disposition, the number of lots increased to 1,305.
Disposition of these lots was made by the Bureau of Lands thru sales, under the
Friar Lands Act, as early as 1910 and records show that even before the Second
World War, all lots in the Piedad Estate have been disposed of. Owing perhaps to
the scarcity of land applicants at the time, it will be observed that a number of
applicants have acquired several lots totalling several hectares. Among the
vendees with several lots are the Philippine Trust Co., the Zuzuarregui's and the
Metropolitan Water District, to name a few. A list of lot holders in the Piedad
Estate with the corresponding lot numbers, lot areas and date of purchase from
the Bureau of Lands is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX "B".
Thru a series of transfer of lots from one owner to another attended at
times by subdivision into smaller lots and at other times by consolidation of
several lots into one, most of the lots of the Piedad Estate have lost their identity
both in original ownership structure and lot descriptions. Piedad Estate now
embraces and includes a number of private residential subdivisions among which
are the following:
1. Villar Maloles Subdivision (owned by Villar Maloles, Psd-21997)
2. U.P. Sites Nos. 1 and 2

3. Sunnyville Subdivision (Owned by the Delos Santos family)

4. Sterling Meadows Subdivision (LRC) Pcs-11110
5. Dona Patrona Subdivision
6. Far Eastern University (43 has.)

7. Luis Reyes (Psd-19419)

8. Jose Yulo (PLS-336-D)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 By virtue of subsequent changes in political boundaries, Piedad Estate is
now within Quezon City. It is located on both sides of Luzon Avenue and is
bounded on the North by the Republic Avenue; on the East by private residential
subdivisions which includes the B.F. Homes (LRC) Psd-133236, the Villa Ligaya
Subdivision (Psd-65729), the Kapalaran Subdivision (Pcs-47850), the Kasiyahan
Subdivision (LRC) Pcs-12091, Zuzuarregui Property (Psd-34912) and the Doña
Beartiz Subdivision under Psd-39351; on the South by the Don Mariano Marcos
Avenue; and on the South-West and West by the U.P. Sites Nos. 1 and 2. EAcHCI

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION

There is no doubt that Piedad Estate has long been segregated from the
mass of the public domain and have become private lands duly registered under
the Torrens System following the procedure for the con rmation of private lands
prescribed in Act 496. Thus the lands inside the Piedad Estate are no longer lands
of the public domain. Neither are these lands forest lands, in the classi cation of
lands for forest purposes, the main criterion prescribed in Section 15 of P.D. 705,
the Forestry Code, is its slope. Those beyond 18% are to be preserved for forest
purposes while those below are to be released as not needed for forest purposes,
hence, as alienable and disposable. By its physical nature, location and historical
use, the land in question can hardly be considered and classi ed as forest land.
Physically, it is rst, level and at most slightly rolling land. Location wise, it used
to be within the periphery and now in the heart of a metropolis. While originally it
was used for agricultural purposes, it has later become urban due to population
pressure and rapid urbanization in the Metro Manila area. It is devoid of any
timber land, more so if we talk of forest of commercial value. In fact, the
Composite Land Classi cation Committee of the MNR composed of the Directors
of BFD, BL, BFAR and BMGS, has already signed a land classi cation map and
recommended for its release because it has absolutely no forest value.
On the basis of existing records of the Bureau of Lands and the area of the
Piedad Estate as contained in the Technical Descriptions of the said Estate
published in the January 21, 1910 issue of the O cial Gazette, there is no
expansion or enlargement of the area, hence, it is recommended that existing
titles within the area should be respected and their validity upheld.
xxx xxx xxx

In view of all the foregoing, the committee recommends that all existing
titles validly issued within the area be respected and their validity upheld. 7
(Emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, the defaulted titled owners prayed that judgment be rendered:

1. Declaring the aforesaid Partial Decision on defaulted private
respondents as null and void;

2. Declaring all Residential Use Permits issued by the Director of Forest

Management Bureau as null and void;
3. Declaring all Transfer of Certi cates of Titles of the petitioners
(respondents herein) emanating from OCT 614 and TCT 3548 (1713) as valid;

4. Ordering private respondents (petitioners herein), their agents or

representatives and all other persons claiming right under them to vacate the
respective titled lands of the petitioners squatted by the former;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 5. Ordering the dismissal of Hon. Judge Reynaldo Roura from the
Regional Trial Court, Macabebe, Pampanga on the grounds of gross
incompetence and gross ignorance of the law (Adm. Circular No. 4 of the
Supreme Court, dated January 27, 1988).
6. Making the preliminary injunction as permanent; and

7. Ordering the private respondents (petitioners herein) to pay jointly

and solidarily to the petitioners the sum of P200,000.00 as moral and exemplary
damages, plus the sum of P5,000.00 per lot of the petitioners as attorney's fee,
aside from cost of suit, and for any other relief just and proper. 8

On June 23, 1989, the Court of Appeals granted respondents' (petitioners therein)
application for writ of preliminary injunction, ruling that:
When this case was called for hearing on June 21, 1989 on the application
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the parties and their respective
counsel appeared and orally argued their respective stand on the matter. It is
admitted that the herein petitioners, indispensable parties in the case, were not
individually served with summons.

We believe and so hold that there is merit in the instant application for
preliminary injunction, hence, the same is hereby GRANTED. Upon the posting by
the petitioners of a bond in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00), subject to Our approval, let a writ of preliminary injunction issue
enjoining the respondents (petitioners herein), and all persons acting for and in
their behalf, to desist and refrain from enforcing or implementing, or from
attempting to enforce and implement, the questioned writ of execution of the
partial judgment, dated March 21, 1988, rendered in Civil Case No. Q-35672,
entitled: "Teo lo M. Gariando, et al., petitioners versus Gregorio Dizon, et al.,
respondents", until further orders from this Court.

SO ORDERED. 9

On November 15, 1989, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision 1 0 granting the
petition and annulling the Partial Decision in Civil Case No. Q-35762 based on its nding
that the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over the persons of respondents —
. . . becomes all the more apparent when petitioners claim or asseverate
that the assailed Partial Decision can not bind Vilar-Maloles (VILMA), the
umbrella name, for the simple reason that said PARTNERSHIP was dissolved on
January 26, 1976, for it can no longer be sued as it had no more juridical
personality.

xxx xxx xxx

Furthermore, petitioners contend that "the summons and the Partial
Decision were published in a local newspaper edited in Caloocan City and
Malolos, Bulacan known as "METROPOLITAN NEWSWEEK" implying that said
summons and Partial Decision were not published in a newspaper of general
circulation in Quezon City as required by PD 1079, Sec. 1 thereof. Petitioners not
having been duly noti ed of the hearing/proceedings, the Partial Decision being
assailed is without signi cance to them or as far as petitioners are concerned
said Partial Decision is null and void. 1 1

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated December

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 21, 1989. 1 2
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari which raises the following issues:
I. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS' QUESTIONED
DECISION HAS VIOLATED PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS BY
IGNORING AND LEAVING UNDECIDED ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE
ANSWER OF PETITIONERS IN CA-G.R. NO. SP-17596.

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A-QUO HAS ACQUIRED JURISDICTION

OVER RESPONDENT VILMA MALOLES SUBDIVISION BY THE
PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMONS AND PETITION AS ORDERED BY THE
COURT IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-35672 AND SO THE PARTIAL DECISION
(ANNEX "B") WAS LEGAL, VALID AND PROPER.

III. WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS PER THEIR PETITION

BEFORE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAS A VALID CAUSE OF
ACTION CONSIDERING THEY ADOPTED CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS OR
THEORIES OF THE CASE, AND THAT RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION (ANNEX "G") IS VOID. 1 3

We find no merit in the instant petition.

The case before the Court of Appeals was one for annulment of judgment, certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus. In resolving the same, the Court of Appeals need not retry the
facts. An action for annulment of judgment is grounded only on two justi cations: (1)
extrinsic fraud; and (2) lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. 1 4 All that herein
private respondents had to prove was that the trial court had no jurisdiction; that they were
prevented from having a trial or presenting their case to the trial court by some act or
conduct of petitioners; 1 5 or that they had been denied due process of law. Thus, the Court
of Appeals need only to resolve the issues of lack of jurisdiction, existence of extrinsic
fraud, and denial of due process of law.
The action for annulment of judgment cannot and was not a substitute for the lost
remedy of appeal. The very purpose of the action for annulment of judgment was to have
the nal and executory judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation. 1 6
Whether or not the assailed Partial Decision based solely on facts and evidence presented
by the petitioners is meritorious is irrelevant and immaterial. Thus, the Court of Appeals
did not err, nor did it violate the petitioners' right to due process of law, when it refused to
consider all the factual issues raised by petitioners.
We also agree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the Partial Decision is null
and void insofar as private respondents are concerned since the latter were not duly
served summons or noti ed of the proceedings against them. The summons and the
Partial Decision were published in a local newspaper edited and published in Caloocan City
and Malolos, Bulacan. However, the Court of Appeals found the publication in said
newspaper, namely the "Metropolitan Newsweek," to be invalid because the said periodical
is not considered a newspaper of general circulation in Quezon City where the subject
property is located, as required by Presidential Decree No. 1079, Section 1.
Petitioners, however, contend that the service of summons by publication was legal
and in accordance with the requirements of Rule 14, Section 14 of the Rules of Court. The
service by publication was done pursuant to the orders of the trial court dated May 5, 1993
and September 29, 1983. 1 7
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 While the service of summons by publication may have been done with the approval
of the trial court, it does not cure the fatal defect that the "Metropolitan Newsweek" is not
a newspaper of general circulation in Quezon City. The Rules strictly require that
publication must be "in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such
time as the court may order." 1 8 The court orders relied upon by petitioners did not specify
the place and the length of time that the summons was to be published. In the absence of
such speci cation, publication in just any periodical does not satisfy the strict
requirements of the rules. The incomplete directive of the court a quo coupled with the
defective publication of the summons rendered the service by publication ineffective. The
modes of service of summons should be strictly followed in order that the court may
acquire jurisdiction over the respondents, 1 9 and failure to strictly comply with the
requirements of the rules regarding the order of its publication is a fatal defect in the
service of summons. 2 0 It cannot be overemphasized that the statutory requirements of
service of summons, whether personally, by substituted service, or by publication, must be
followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any mode of service other than that prescribed by
the statute is considered ineffective. 2 1
Be that as it may, even granting that the publication strictly complied with the rules,
the service of summons would still be ineffective insofar as private respondents are
concerned. At the time the complaint for Quieting of Title was led on November 2, 1983,
Vilma Maloles Subdivision no longer existed as a juridical entity. Vilma Maloles
Subdivision, a partnership, was dissolved more than six (6) years earlier, as evidenced by a
Certi cate of Dissolution issued by the SEC dated January 26, 1976. 2 2 Consequently, it
could no longer be sued having lost its juridical personality.
It was also established that all the lots within the subdivision had been disposed of
to private individuals, herein private respondents. As the titled owners, they should have
been impleaded as party-respondents before the court a quo. They were not made
respondents, neither were they informed of the adverse proceedings that would result in
the nulli cation of their duly registered titles. Clearly, there was a blatant disregard for their
rights as registered owners. Private respondents' titles and rights as owners have been
unjustly violated. Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err in granting private respondents'
petition by annulling and setting aside the Partial Decision rendered by the court a quo for
lack of jurisdiction and for denial of due process of law.
Petitioners failed to show that they were the aggrieved parties. If ever there was
denial of due process, it was private respondents who suffered therefrom. Whether by
petitioners' failure to effectively serve summons or by omitting to name private
respondents as respondents, the trial court's Partial Decision declaring private
respondents' titles null and void was clearly violative of the due process requirement of the
Constitution. It is elementary that before a person can be deprived of his right or property
he should rst be informed of the claim against him and the theory on which such claim is
premised. 2 3 The courts will not countenance a denial of the fundamental right to due
process, which is a cornerstone of our legal system. 2 4
The Partial Decision was a judgment by default, which is generally looked upon with
disfavor, 2 5 for it cannot pretend to be based on the merits of the controversy. 2 6 As in this
case, the judgment by default may amount to a positive and considerable injustice to
private respondents. Hence, justice and equity demand that this case be litigated anew. 2 7
It is evident that the reopening of the case would not amount to an exercise in futility nor is
it intended to further delay the nal resolution of this controversy. The court a quo should
give all the necessary parties every chance to ght their case fairly and in the open, without
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 resort to technicalities. 2 8
Finally, the conclusion that the Partial Decision of the court a quo is void nds
support in Rule 10, Section 5(c) of the then Rules of Court, which provides:
"(c) Effect of partial default. — When a pleading asserting a claim
states a common cause of action against several defending parties, some of
whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all
upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented."

In fact, the court a quo enumerated in the Partial Decision those who led
responsive pleadings. Considering that petitioners in their complaint stated a common
cause of action against all the named respondents, the court a quo should have heard the
case as against all respondents, the defaulted respondents included. However, the trial
court, unmindful of the above-quoted rule, proceeded to receive evidence ex parte only
against the defaulted respondents. The trial court's disposition is not only violative of the
rules but also a clear negation of the defaulted respondents' limited rights.
Whatever defense and evidence the non-defaulted respondents may present which
would be applicable to the situation of the defaulted respondents should inure to the
bene t of the latter. The nulli cation of OCT 614 adversely affected the answering
respondents for they all share the same mother title. In effect, the court a quo prejudged
the case even against the answering respondents, for how could OCT 614, the mother title,
be valid for one set of respondents and null and void for the other respondents? In ne, the
Partial Decision was procedurally flawed.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 17596 is AFFIRMED and the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Annex "R", Records, p. 259.

2. Partial Decision on Defaulted Private Respondents, Civil Case No. Q-35672, RTC, Quezon
City, Branch 83, penned by Judge Reynaldo V. Roura; Rollo, pp. 50-52; references to
exhibits omitted.
3. Ibid., pp. 52-54 (citations omitted).
4. CA-G.R. SP No. 17596.

5. 130 SCRA 666 (1984).

6. At 673-677.

7. Special Order No. 426, Series of 1986; Rollo, pp. 214-221.

8. Petition, Rollo, p. 111.

9. Record, p. 319.

10. Associate Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, ponente; Associate Justices Antonio M.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Martinez and Jesus M. Elbinias, concurring.
11. Rollo, pp. 1 27-129.
12. Rollo, p. 136.
13. Petition, Rollo, p. 35.
14. Strait Times, Inc. v. CA, 294 SCRA 714 (1998); Salonga v. CA, 269 SCRA 534 (1997).
15. Ybanez v. CA, 253 SCRA 540 (1997).
16. I Moran, Rules of Court, 1950 ed.. p. 697, citing Anuran v. Aquino, 38 Phil. 29: Banco-
Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; Santiago v. Ceniza, 5 SCRA 494 (1962).
17. Annex "F-1" and "F-2" cited in pp. 39-40, Rollo.
18. Rules of Court, Rule 14, Section 14.

19. Gan Hock v. CA, 197 SCRA 223 (1991).

20. Sahagun v. CA, 198 SCRA 44 (1991)
21. Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank v. King, 172 SCRA 60 (1989)
22. Annex "P", Record. p. 255.

23. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 266 SCRA 515 (1997).

24. Fabella v. CA, 282 SCRA 256 (1997).
25. Trojono v. Cruz, 80 SCRA 712 (1977).
26. Lesaca v. CA, 215 SCRA 17 (1992): Coombs v. Santos, 24 Phil. 446 (1913).
27. Sps. Rudy Ameloquio, Sr. and Laguimas Obnamia v. CA , G.R. No. 124243, June 15,
2000.
28. Gerales v. CA , 218 SCRA 638 (1993); Goldloop Properties, Inc. v. CA , 212 SCRA 504
(1992).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com