Case Summary (G.R. No. 100643)

Finality of Judgment and Appeal

The petitioner, Adez Realty, failed to challenge the ruling of the Court of Appeals regarding issues previously decided in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392. This decision became final and executory due to the petitioner's inaction in filing an appeal or a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. The principle of finality of judgment dictates that once the period for appeal lapses without action, the decision is conclusive and cannot be modified or set aside by the court.

• Petitioner did not appeal or file a motion for reconsideration.
• The decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 is final and executory.
• Finality of judgment prevents modification or reversal by the court.

Nature of Land Registration Proceedings

Land registration proceedings are classified as proceedings in rem, meaning they concern the property itself rather than the individuals involved. Consequently, personal notice to landowners or claimants is not required to establish the court's authority over the property. The absence of personal notice in the case of judicial reconstitution does not constitute a jurisdictional defect.

• Land registration is a proceeding in rem, not in personam.
• Personal notice to property owners is not necessary for court authority.
• Lack of personal notice does not invalidate the proceedings.

Publication as Sufficient Notice

The publication of the notice of a petition for reconstitution in the Official Gazette serves to inform the public and allows any interested parties to oppose the petition within a specified timeframe. This publication is deemed sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court, and the failure of an individual with a legitimate claim to receive personal notice does not invalidate the proceedings.

• Publication in the Official Gazette informs the public of the petition.
• Interested parties may oppose the petition within thirty days.
• Proper publication is sufficient for the court's jurisdiction.

Res Judicata and Duplicative Actions

The issues raised in CA-G.R. SP No. 23773 are essentially a reiteration of those previously addressed in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392, which has become res judicata. The petitioner's attempt to annul the trial court's order allowing reconstitution is duplicative of an earlier motion that was granted but later reversed by the appellate court. A party cannot relitigate the same cause of action by changing the form of action.

• CA-G.R. SP No. 23773 duplicates issues from CA-G.R. CV No. 21392.
• The principle of res judicata prevents relitigation of the same cause.
• Changing the form of action does not allow a party to escape finality.

Ethical Violations by Counsel

The petitioner's counsel misrepresented the contents of the Court of Appeals' decision by including a phrase not found in the original ruling. This misrepresentation constitutes a prima facie case of misleading the court, violating the ethical standards set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such conduct reflects a serious disregard for the truth and...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 100643)

Case Background

• The case involves Adez Realty, Incorporated as the petitioner against several respondents, including the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal.
• The petition was filed on December 28, 1990, seeking to annul the Regional Trial Court's order dated November 20, 1984, which allowed the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12662.
• The petition also aimed to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 dated July 31, 1990.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on April 30, 1991, citing lack of merit.
• The dismissal was based on two key points:
  • The petition reiterated issues previously decided in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392, which had become final and executory after no timely appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed.
  • The Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, had jurisdiction over the matter, with the issue being one of venue rather than jurisdiction.

Main Issues Raised

• The petition raised four issues, which were simplified into:
  • Whether the Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, could acquire jurisdiction over reconstitution proceedings involving real property situated in Quezon City.
  • Whether the publication of the notice of the petitio...continue reading