Title
Baldoz vs. Papa
Case
G.R. No. L-18150
Decision Date
Jul 30, 1965
Spouses applied for land registration; oppositor died pre-hearing, son failed to notify court. Default declared, title issued. Son’s annulment suit dismissed: res judicata, untimely.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18150)

Background of the Case

On January 7, 1957, the spouses Bruno Papa and Valentina Agaceta filed an application to register a parcel of land under Act 496. Following the required publication of the application, a hearing was scheduled for May 16, 1957, during which an order of general default was issued. However, Baldomero Baldoz, the father of the appellant, filed a petition to lift this order and attached his opposition to the application. The court, on the same date, granted this petition, resetting the case for hearing on October 1, 1958.

Procedural Developments

Prior to the rescheduled hearing, Baldomero Baldoz passed away on July 28, 1957. The appellant, Superior Baldoz, did not inform the court of his father's death, leading to the hearing notice being returned unserved. On September 11, 1958, the appellees substituted the original applicants, and at the October 1 hearing, only the appellees attended, resulting in Baldomero's default due to non-appearance. Following this, the court allowed the appellees to present their evidence and subsequently issued a judgment for the registration of the land in their favor on February 16, 1959.

Enforcement of Judgment and Motion for Demolition

After the judgment became executory, the Land Registration Commission issued Decree No. N-71779, and Original Certificate of Title No. 15264 was subsequently issued in the names of the appellees. On June 17, 1959, the appellees filed a "Motion for Issuance of Writ of Demolition" and "Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession." The appellant filed an opposition and a counter-petition to stay the judgment's effects, which was denied on February 9, 1960.

Annulment Action Commencement

On March 1, 1960, the appellant initiated an action in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for the annulment of the registration decision on two grounds: (1) the court's reversible error in declaring his father in default despite his previously filed opposition, and (2) the denial of his motion for substitution deprived him of his day in court. The appellees sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the appellant lacked legal standing, that the complaint did not state a cause of action, and that the claim was barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations.

Court Rulings and Res Judicata Doctrine

On September 30, 1960, the court dismissed the complaint, emphasizing that the final judgment in Registration Case No. 2215 constituted res judicata for the present action, and noting that the annulment action filed more than a year after the decree's issuance could not proceed as it lacked grounds of fraud as specified in Section 38 of Act 496. The appellant contended that the lower court had lost jurisdiction over his deceased father; however, the court found

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.