MENDOZA

v CA
FACTS:
1. Generosa Mendoza filed with the CFI Bulacan an application for the
registration of 2 parcels of land, with a residential house.
2. A notice was issued on Dec. 3, 1964, setting the date of the initial hearing on
June 18 1965. Notice was duly published, posted and served but nobody
appeared nor filed an answer or opposition within the period allowed for
that purpose.
3. Consequently, the registration court entered on July 6, 1965, an order of
general default and allowed the applicant to present his evidence exparte
4. From the evidence presented it was proven that Mendoza and his wife were
the owners of the parcels of land subject of the application but the same were
sold by them to the Spouses Cruz subject to the vendors usufructory rights.
5. On the basis of such evidence, the registration court rendered a decision
ordering the registration of the subject lands into the name of the vendees,
Spouses Cruz, subject to the usufructory rights of Generosa Mendoza.
6. After the decision had become final, Generosa Mendoza filed a motion for
issuance of decree. It was then issued confirming title to the land of the
vendees and ordering the registration of the vendees subject to the
usufructuary rights of the venders. An OCT was issued to the Spouses Cruz.
7. Subsequently, Generosa Mendoza filed a petition for reconsideration to set
aside the decree that let to the issuance of OCT for the reason that Spouses
Cruz failed to pay the purchase price.
8. Registration Courts decision:
o Set aside the decree of registration for the court does not have a
jurisdiction to order the registration of the lands in the name of the
vendees, Spouses Cruz, who are not parties to the application for
registration.
o It directed the registration of lands to Generosa Mendoza.
9. Upon appeal, CA set aside the order of the registration Court
o Set aside the registration of lands in the name of Generosa Mendoza.
o Upheld the registration in the names of Spouses Cruz, purchasers of
the landholdings subject matter of an application for registration,
notwithstanding that they were not parties in the original registration
proceedings.
o CA based its decision on the following:
Mendoza himself caused the registration of the title to the land
in the name of the vendees
No formal amendment of the application for registration
substituting the vendees for the applicant. Thus, the
registration court could legally order the title issued in the
name of vendees because the applicant himself provided the
basis for adjudication.
10. Hence, this petition.
 o Mendoza never testified on court so he could not have possibly caused
the registration of the title to land to the vendees.
ISSUE: W/N title to land should be given to the vendees who were not parties
in the original registration proceedings

HELD:

1. On the first assignment of error, that Mendoza himself caused the
registration of title to the lands, SC held that CA made no error. The
transcript of the stenographic notes of the hearing on the application for
registration showed that petitioner and his wife testified before the court
that they sold the land to the Spouses Cruz. The deed of sale was showed and
was confirmed by Mendoza that the land in said deed was the subject matter
of the registration proceedings.
2. Second error: The registration court could not legally order the registration f
the land in the names of the vendees, who were neither the applicants nor
the oppositors in the registration case under Section 29 of the LRA.
o Section 29 expressly authorizes the registration of the land subject
matter of a registration proceeding in the name of the buyer or of the
person to whom the land has been conveyed by an instrument
executed during the interval of time between the filing of the
application for registration and the issuance of the decree of title
o Petitioner overlooked the express provision of Section 29. It is clear
that it allows the land, subject matter of an application for
encumbered during the interval of time between the filing of the
application and issuance of the decree of title, and to have the
instruments embodying such disposition or encumbrance presented
to the registration court to either: (1) Order such land registered
subject to the encumbrance created by said instruments or (2) Order
the decree of registration issued in the name of the buyer or of the
person to whom the property has been conveyed by said instrument.
o The law does not require that the application for registration be
amended by substituting the buyer or the person to whom the
property has been conveyed for the applicant.
o Neither does it require that the buyer or the person to whom the
property has been conveye be a party to the case. He may thus be a
total stranger to the land registration proceedings. The only
requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to
the court by the interested party together with a motion that the same
be considered in relation with the application; and (2) that prior
notice be given to the parties to the case. And the peculiar facts and
circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements
have been complied with.
o In the case at bar, the instrument embodying the sale of the subject
property was duly presented to the registration court for
consideration.
 It was the petitioner-applicant who presented the deed of sale
and testified before the same that he did sell the land to the
respondents.
The petitioner even filed the motion for the issuance of the
decree of confirmation of title after having received the
decision of the court ordering the registration of the title to the
land in the names of vendees-respondents, subject to the
stipulated usufructuary rightsthereby signifying his full assent
to the same.
3. Third assignment of error: CA erred in holding that he was not a victim of
fraud by the vendees who failed to pay the purchase price.
o Under Section 38, the only ground upon which a decree of registration
may be set aside is fraud in obtaining the same.
o Failure to pay the purchase price is not fraud in contemplation of
Section 38.
o It is not within the jurisdiction of CA to look whether the DOS should
be rescinded due to failure to pay the purchase price. It should be
litigated in the ordinary court.


AQUINO, DISSENTING
1. Main premise: The registration in the name of Spouses Cruz is not proper
because they did not intervene in the land registration proceeding. They did
not defray expenses thereof and have not paid the purchase price.