G.R. No. 186400 - Bolos vs. Bolos

A protracted, contentious dispute arose over a sizable real property in Quezon City, covering areas known as Old Balara, Sitio Veterans, Barrio Payatas, and Silangan.
The aggregate disputed area amounts to 502 hectares, with multiple claimants—both titled and untitled—asserting interests over different portions of the property.

The petitioners, identified as World War II veterans, their dependents, and successors-in-interest, initiated a class suit for quieting of title before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-35672).
They claimed that the disputed land, originally part of the government’s forest lands, had been continuously, adversely, and exclusively possessed (through the principle of tacking) for over 30 years.
Petitioners further asserted that valid applications for land titling had been filed with the government agency in their respective names.

The dispute involved three parcels of land (referred to as Lots 1, 2, and 3) with various issues:

Lot 1: Covered by TCT No. 5690 allegedly in respondent Jose V. Bagtas’ name; originally based on a title (TCT No. 48546) with a much smaller area, later fraudulently expanded to cover over 23 hectares through illegal resurveys.
Lot 2: Covered by TCT No. 3548 issued to a defaulted respondent (Vilma Maloles Subdivision Inc.), derived from earlier titles that themselves lacked proper technical descriptions.
Lot 3: Originally covered by OCT No. 333, from which over 846 suspicious TCTs were issued following an illicit expansion from 4,574 sq. meters to an impossibly larger area.

It was established that the titles in question had no technical description on their face, rendering them fictitious and void ab initio.
The issuance of numerous subsequent TCTs from these void mother titles was found to be fraudulent.

Due to difficulties in effecting personal service, petitioners moved for and were granted leave by the trial court to serve summons by publication.
The summons was published in the Metropolitan Newsweek, a periodical edited and published in Caloocan City and Malolos, Bulacan.
However, several respondents, including the significant entity Vilma Maloles Subdivision (which had dissolved as a juridical personality years earlier), either failed to answer or were never properly summoned.
Default judgments ensued, leading to the court a quo permitting ex parte evidence against non-responsive parties.

In a Partial Decision, the trial court ruled in favor of petitioners by declaring the dubious titles (OCT No. 614, TCT No. 5690, and TCT No. 3548), and the subsequent TCTs, null and void, thereby granting petitioners ownership through extraordinary prescription.
Approximately one year and 57 days later, titled owners of subdivided lots within Vilma Maloles Subdivision filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus before the Court of Appeals.
They contended lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service via publication, non-inclusion as parties in the audible proceedings, and alleged extrinsic fraud and violation of due process.

The petitioners argued that service by publication was in compliance with Rule 14, Section 14 of the Rules of Court.
However, opposing respondents challenged that the Metropolitan Newsweek was not a newspaper of general circulation in Quezon City, thus rendering the publication defective.
The flawed publication and incomplete summons process led to substantive due process violations, particularly affecting private respondents who were not afforded a chance to be heard.

Whether the titles (OCT No. 614, TCT No. 5690, TCT No. 3548, and subsequent TCTs) are null and void ab initio due to the absence of proper technical descriptions.
Whether petitioners, through 30 years of continuous, public, open, and uninterrupted possession, acquired ownership via extra-ordinary prescription despite the existence of these titles.

Whether the trial court acquired proper jurisdiction over all the respondents by effecting service of summons through publication in a periodical that may not constitute a newspaper of general circulation in Quezon City.
Whether the failure to properly notify private respondents (including the individual lot owners) violates their right to due process.

Whether the court’s proceeding, which allowed ex parte evidence against defaulted respondents without including the non-defaulted ones, contravened the requirement for due process in providing every party an opportunity to present their defense.
Whether the partial default judgment, which nullified the titles of private respondents, leads to an unjust deprivation of their property rights.

Whether the private respondents, who adopted contradictory theories of the case, have a valid cause of action against the petitioners given the inherent conflict in their legal positions and interests.

Whether the dissolution of Vilma Maloles Subdivision (dissolved in 1976) invalidates its inclusion as a proper respondent and affects the binding authority of the trial court’s partial decision.