#68 Roxas vs.
Enriquez them in default and had Parcel A registered as the absolute
(G.R. No. L-8539 December 24, 1914)
By: Tangonan, Julius
Doctrine:
1. 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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Later, Atty. Modesto Reyes, in behalf of the city of Manila, called
the courts 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.
5. Due to the failure of the defendants to appear to impugn the
application within the period fixed by law, the court declared
property of Roxas.
6. 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.
7. 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 courts 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 Thus, in actions in rem, personal notice to owners of a res is not
could personal notice be ever given to unknown claimants. 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.