Title
Ching vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 59731
Decision Date
Jan 11, 1990
A deceased person's estate cannot be bound by ex-parte proceedings; summons by publication is invalid, rendering the judgment void. Laches bars claims after 19 years.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 59731)

Key Dates

• May 1960 – Original registration (Decree No. N-78716; O.C.T. No. 2433) to Maximo Nofuente and Dominga Lumandan
• August 1960 – Reconveyance of 5/6 share; T.C.T. No. 78633 issued
• September 18, 1961 – Sale to Ching Leng; T.C.T. No. 91137 issued
• October 19, 1965 – Death of Ching Leng in Boston, U.S.A.
• December 27, 1978 – Pedro Asedillo files Civil Case No. 6888-P for reconveyance and cancellation of T.C.T. No. 91137
• June 15, 1979 – Default judgment ordering cancellation of Ching Leng’s title
• November 10, 1979 – Alfredo Ching petitions to set aside the default judgment
• September 30, 1981 – Court of Appeals dismisses Ching’s petition
• January 11, 1990 – Supreme Court decision under the 1987 Constitution

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process, in personam service)
• Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act), as amended
• Rule 13, Sec. 7 and Rule 39, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court (service by publication)
• Civil Code of the Philippines (Arts. 37, 42 on juridical personality)
• Jurisprudence: Ang Lam v. Rosillosa, Perkins v. Dizon, Dumlao v. Quality Plastic Products, Estanislao v. Honrado, Sy, Sr. v. IAC, Bailon-Casilao v. CA

Facts of the Case

  1. In 1960 the Nofuente spouses obtained Torrens registration of a 51,852 sqm parcel in Paranaque, Rizal. They reconveyed 5/6 of the land to their children, whose subsequent sale to Ching Leng resulted in T.C.T. No. 91137 (1961).
  2. Ching Leng died in 1965. Alfredo Ching was appointed administrator of his estate in Special Proceeding No. 1956-P, with published notice and no oppositors. The property formed part of the estate inventory.
  3. In December 1978 Pedro Asedillo sued “Ching Leng and/or Estate of Ching Leng” for reconveyance and cancellation of T.C.T. No. 91137, alleging Ching Leng’s residence abroad and requesting service by publication. The trial court ordered summons published.
  4. No answer was filed; the court admitted evidence ex parte and, on June 15, 1979, declared Asedillo absolute owner, cancelled Ching Leng’s title, and directed issuance of a new title to Asedillo, who immediately sold the property to a developer.
  5. Alfredo Ching moved to set aside the judgment for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court vacated its default judgment but then reinstated it on Asedillo’s motion. Reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals dismissed Ching’s certiorari petition in 1981.

Issues

  1. Whether service of summons and judgment by publication on a deceased person and/or his estate conferred personal jurisdiction.
  2. Whether an action for reconveyance and cancellation of title is in personam or quasi in rem.
  3. Whether ex parte proceedings were permissible.
  4. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties.
  5. Whether Pedro Asedillo’s 19-year delay constituted laches.

Legal Analysis

  1. In personam Nature of Reconveyance Action
    – A suit to recover title to land is a real action but remains in personam, binding only parties duly impleaded and served (Ang Lam v. Rosillosa).
    – A deceased person cannot be served; upon death juridical personality ceases (Arts. 37, 42, Civil Code; Dumlao v. Quality Plastic). Service by publication cannot validate jurisdiction over a non-existent party.

  2. Quasi in rem Service Inapplicable
    – Publication may serve non-resident defendants in quasi in rem cases (Perkins v. Dizon).
    – Asedillo’s cause was strictly in personam; T.C.T. cancellation must be filed in the original land registration case under Section 112, Land Registrati

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.