Facts:

• The case "Pinlac v. Court of Appeals" involves a petition for quieting of title over three parcels of land (Lot Nos. 1, 2, and 3).
• Petitioners include Alberto G. Pinlac, Atty. Eriberto H. Decena, Rodolfo F. Reyes, Felipe Briones, Juanito Metilla, Jr., and others.
• Lot No. 1 is covered by TCT No. 5690, Lot No. 2 by OCT No. 614, and Lot No. 3 by OCT No. 333.
• On March 21, 1988, the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them absolute owners of the lots by extraordinary prescription and ordered the cancellation of the original and subsequent transfer certificates of title, except for non-defaulted respondents.
• On May 17, 1989, defaulted title owners of Vilma Subdivision filed a Petition to Annul the Partial Decision with the Court of Appeals, which was granted on November 15, 1989, due to defective service of summons by publication.
• Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading them to file a petition for certiorari.
• On January 19, 2001, the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.
• Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the trial court's decision concerning Lot No. 3 should not have been annulled.
• On November 20, 2001, the Supreme Court partially granted the motion, reinstating paragraphs 4 and 5 of the trial court's Partial Decision regarding Lot No. 3.
• The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Land Registration Authority (LRA), filed a motion for intervention and a Petition-In-Intervention to protect government properties on Lot No. 3.
• The World War II Veterans Legionaries of the Philippines also filed a Petition-in-Intervention.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, annulling the trial court's Partial Decision due to defective service of summons by publication.
2. The Supreme Court modified its previous resolution and annulled the trial court's Partial Decision concerning Lot Nos. 2 and 3.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the Republic of the Philippines' Petition-...(Unlock)

Ratio:

1. The Court of Appeals annulled the trial court's Partial Decision because the service of summons by publication was defective, meaning the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed this, emphasizing the necessity of proper service of summons to ensure due process.
2. The Supreme Court found that the reinstated portions of the trial court's Partial Decision concerning Lot No. 3 were flawed as they did not specify the metes and bounds of the disputed land, violating the constitutional requirement that decisions must clearly...continue reading