Facts:

The case involves Adez Realty, Incorporated as the petitioner and the Honorable Court of Appeals, the Presiding Judge of Branch 79 of the Regional Trial Court in Morong, Rizal, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and Aguedo Eugenio as respondents. The petition was filed on December 28, 1990, before the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 23773. The petitioner sought to annul the order of the Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, dated November 20, 1984, which allowed the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12662. The petitioner also aimed to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392, dated July 31, 1990. On April 30, 1991, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit, stating that the issues raised were a reiteration of those previously decided in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392, which had become final and executory due to the absence of a motion for reconsideration or ap...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Adez Realty, Incorporated filed a petition on December 28, 1990, before the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking two distinct reliefs:
• Annulment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal’s order dated November 20, 1984, which allowed the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12662.
• Setting aside the CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 dated July 31, 1990.
• Procedural History:
• The CA dismissed the petition on April 30, 1991, for lack of merit.
• Adez Realty’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied on June 26, 1991.

Issues Raised in the Petition

• The petitioner raised four issues, which could be simplified into two major questions:
• Whether the RTC of Morong, Rizal, acquired jurisdiction over reconstitution proceedings involving a real property situated in Quezon City.
• Whether the publication of the petition’s notice in two successive issues of the Official Gazette and on the bulletin board of the RTC of Morong, Rizal, fulfilled the requirements of Section 13 of R.A. No. 26.
• Additional Concerns:
• The petitioner attempted to re-litigate issues that had already been raised and decided in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392.
• The failure to file a timely appeal or motion for reconsideration resulted in the CA decision attaining finality and executory effect.

Factual Findings by the Lower Court and Appellate Court

• The RTC allowed the reconstitution of the title despite alleged defects such as failure to give personal notice.
• It was noted that publication of notice in the Official Gazette was intended to give constructive notice to all interested parties, rendering personal service unnecessary.
• The appellate court reiterated the determination that the issues had been decided previously and that the finality of judgment barred subsequent review.

Statements Regarding Counsel’s Conduct

• In the petition for review submitted by ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, it was alleged that material facts were intercalated that did not appear in the original CA decision.
• The court identified the inclusion of the phrase “without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty” as an attempt to misstate the factual findings of the court a quo, thereby potentially misleading the reviewing court.

Conclusion on Facts

• The appellate court found that Adez Realty’s petition essentially re-echoed issues already litigated and decided.
• The petition was dismissed on the ground that it sought to reopen matters that had become final and executory.

Issue:

Jurisdiction Over Reconstitution Proceedings

• Whether the RTC of Morong, Rizal, held the proper venue and jurisdiction to convene reconstitution proceedings involving real property located in Quezon City.
• The contention that the issue raised pertains to venue (and not jurisdiction proper), which could be waived if not objected to timely.

Sufficiency of Notice

• Whether publication of the notice in two consecutive issues of the Official Gazette and its posting on the RTC bulletin board sufficed as compliance with Section 13 of R.A. No. 26.
• The debate on whether personal notice to the actual claimants or occupants was necessary in land registration proceedings described as in rem.

Res Judicata and Finality of Judgment

• Whether petitioner’s failure to file a timely appeal or motion for reconsideration resulted in the earlier CA decision attaining finality, thus barring a second review of the same issues.
• Whether the petition for review improperly attempted to relitigate issues already decided.

Ethical Considerations

• Whether the alleged misquotation by counsel in the petition for review constituted an act of misconduct by introducing a material factual alteration to mislead the court.
• The implications of such conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)