G.R. No. 8539 - Roxas y Chuidian vs. Enriquez

On January 12, 1906, Maria del Consuelo Felisa Roxas y Chuidian, through her attorney, filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration seeking the registration of four parcels of land under the Torrens system.
Parcel A, the focus of the dispute, is located in the district of Binondo, Manila, between specific blocks of Calle Escolta and the northern bank of the Pasig River.
The petition provided both a general and technical description of Parcel A, including:

A general description detailing its boundaries as: north by Calle Escolta, south by the Pasig River, east by the estate of Pedro P. Roxas, and west by the estate of the heirs of Antonio Enriquez.
A technical description with surveyed points, bearings, and distances, indicating measurements (e.g., point A marked 27.75 m from a basic point, boundaries A to B, B to C, etc.), and an area of 1,817.03 square meters.

An accompanying plan, marked as “Exhibit A,” illustrated the technical details, although a noted discrepancy in the direction of line A-B was present (S. 44°30′ W. in the petition versus S. 46°30′ W. in the plan) without affecting the stated distance.

The petition was accompanied by exhibition of documents showing the chain of title of the petitioner and the identities of adjoining landowners.
Upon filing, the examiner of titles conducted an examination and, on March 5, 1906, recommended registration of Parcel A along with the other parcels.
On March 23, 1906, Judge Simplicio del Rosario issued a notice under section 31 of Act No. 496 to all persons (including the Attorney-General, the Municipal Board, and adjacent landowners) indicating the application for registration.
The notice was:

Sent by registered mail to all interested parties.
Posted on the land by the sheriff.
Published in two newspapers (The Manila Times and La Democracia) within the prescribed period.

A certificate by the clerk, A.K. Jones, confirmed that the notice was published and mailed in compliance with the law.

A hearing was held on April 25, 1906, where the petitioner was represented by Antonio Bonifas and the city of Manila appeared through attorney Modesto Reyes.
Issues regarding an “error of closure” in the original plan and other measurement discrepancies were raised by Reyes, prompting an order to correct these errors.
Despite the order to correct the errors in the plan, no correction was actually made in the record of Parcel A.
On July 21, 1906, after further hearings and in default of opposition by named objectors, Judge Simplicio del Rosario issued a decree ordering that Parcel A be registered as the absolute property of the petitioner.
A certificate of title, No. 742, was subsequently issued and the property was registered under the Torrens system.

Nearly five and a half years later, on December 19, 1911, the assistant attorney of the city of Manila filed a petition citing an “error of closure” in the plan, proposing a new survey due to inaccuracies affecting public use (expropriation for a street).
The petition was referred to the chief surveyor, and on December 27, 1911, the existence of errors in the plan was confirmed.
On January 5, 1912, the court ordered the preparation of new plans and notice given to adjoining owners.
On February 28, 1912, the petitioner filed a separate petition requesting correction of the certificate of title so that it would reflect not only the land but also the buildings erected thereon.
On March 20, 1912, Maria del Consuelo Felisa Roxas y Chuidian sold all her rights, title, and interest in Parcel A (including the buildings) to the Masonic Temple Association of Manila.
A new plan, prepared by surveyor B.W. Hay, was submitted on April 19, 1912 for correcting the error of closure identified in the original plan.
During subsequent hearings from April 22 to August 24, 1912, motions were heard:

The city of Manila moved for correction of the error in closure.
The petitioner sought incorporation of the buildings in her certificate of title.
The Masonic Temple Association requested issuance of a certificate in accordance with its purchase contract.

Objectors (the heirs of Antonio Enriquez) appeared and raised objections, largely based on claimed easements or servitudes affecting the land.

After the lower court (the Court of Land Registration) ruled in favor of the petitioner, the city of Manila, the petitioner, and the Masonic Temple Association, a motion for a new trial was filed by the objectors.
The lower court denied the motion for new trial, and the case was ultimately appealed.
On appeal, the respondents (objectors) argued that:

The appellate issues centered on whether the substituted notice (by publication and registered mail) sufficed and whether the registration certificate (including its omissions and plan error) could be corrected.

Whether the method of notice (publication and registered mail) as provided by Act No. 496 constituted sufficient notice in an in rem proceeding for the registration of land, despite the absence of personal service.

Whether the “error of closure” in the original plan, and the ensuing discrepancy in the technical description, justified the ordering of a new survey and correction of the plan.
Whether the omission of the buildings from the original certificate of title, although the petition had clearly included them, mandated a correction of the certificate.

The adequacy of the petitioner’s representation of all persons who might have an interest in the land.
Whether the objections of the heirs of Antonio Enriquez (asserting easements or servitudes) could invalidate the registration and the subsequent corrections.

Whether the Torrens system’s nature as an in rem proceeding precludes the necessity of personal service to all claimants.
Whether the state’s power to determine the proper method of notice and correction under the relevant Act supports the judgments rendered.