G.R. No. 59731 - Ching vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 59731)

Factual Background

A decree of registration (No. N-78716) issued in May 1960 vested title in spouses Maximo Nofuente and Dominga Lumandan over a parcel in Sitio Kay-Biga, Barrio San Dionisio, Paranaque, Rizal. Five-sixths of the parcel was reconveyed in August 1960 to several Nofuentes, producing Transfer Certificate of Title No. 78633. Thereafter a sale to Ching Leng produced Transfer Certificate of Title No. 91137 on September 18, 1961. Ching Leng died on October 19, 1965 in Boston, Massachusetts. His son Alfredo Ching filed Sp. Proc. No. 1956-P in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch III, Pasay City for administration of the estate, and was appointed administrator on December 28, 1965 with letters issued January 3, 1966. The land covered by T.C.T. No. 91137 appeared in the estate inventory.

Origin of the Dispute

On December 27, 1978 private respondent Pedro Asedillo filed Civil Case No. 6888-P in CFI, Branch XXVII, Pasay City, seeking reconveyance of the property and cancellation of T.C.T. No. 91137, alleging possession as the basis of his claim. An amended complaint filed January 30, 1979 averred that the defendant had been residing abroad and might be dead or alive and therefore could be served only by publication. The trial court ordered summons by publication, which was published in March 1979. After the defendant failed to answer, the court permitted presentation of evidence ex parte and rendered a default judgment on June 15, 1979 declaring Pedro Asedillo the true owner, ordering reconveyance and cancellation of T.C.T. No. 91137, and directing issuance of a new title to Pedro Asedillo. The judgment was published in July 1979. The title in the name of Ching Leng was cancelled and a new T.C.T. was issued to Pedro Asedillo, who sold the property to Villa Esperanza Development, Inc. on September 3, 1979.

Post-judgment Proceedings and Appeals

Petitioner Alfredo Ching learned of the default judgment on October 29, 1979 and filed a verified petition to set it aside on November 10, 1979. A vacation judge initially granted the petition on May 29, 1980, but the trial court later reconsidered and reinstated the June 15, 1979 judgment by order dated September 2, 1980. A motion for reconsideration was denied April 12, 1981. Petitioner sought relief in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his original petition on September 30, 1981 and denied reconsideration on February 10, 1982. Private respondent Pedro Asedillo died on June 7, 1981 during the pendency of the appeal. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

Petitioner framed five assignments of error challenging jurisdictional and substantive aspects of the proceedings: whether a dead man and/or his estate may be validly served by summons and decision by publication; whether an action for reconveyance and cancellation of title is in personam and thus binding on a dead man or his estate by publication; whether the proceedings for reconveyance and cancellation could be conducted ex parte; whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over subject matter and parties; and whether private respondent was guilty of laches for instituting the action nineteen years after registration.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioner argued that the action for reconveyance and cancellation is in personam and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the deceased Ching Leng because service by publication was invalid and the deceased could not be bound. Petitioner relied on Ang Lam v. Rosillosa et al. and the principle that a deceased person has lost juridical personality, citing Dumlao v. Quality Plastic Products, Inc. Respondent contended that an action for cancellation of title is quasi in rem because it fixes title to the specific property and thus partakes of the nature of an action in rem, rendering summons by publication appropriate where the defendant is alleged to be a non-resident, relying on Perkins v. Dizon.

Court's Analysis and Legal Reasoning

The Court examined the nature of an action for reconveyance and cancellation of title and held that it is an action in personam. Citing Ang Lam v. Rosillosa, the Court explained that an action to recover land is directed against specific persons and renders judgments binding only upon parties properly impleaded and duly heard. The Court observed that a judgment binding the person of a deceased defendant is void for lack of personal jurisdiction when service was attempted after death. The Court relied on Dumlao v. Quality Plastic Products, Inc. and noted that juridical personality terminates with death under Arts. 37 and 42 of the Civil Code, so the deceased could not have been validly served nor bound.

Filing Venue and the Torrens System

The Court emphasized that a complaint for cancellation of a Torrens title must be filed in the original land registration case in the land registration court, namely the RTC, Pasig, under Section 112 of Act No. 496, as amended, which requires notice to all parties in interest. The Court held that the CFI in Pasay City did not acquire jurisdiction to cancel the Torrens title in Civil Case No. 6888-P and that ex parte proceedings for cancellation were improper. The Court found Perkins v. Dizon inapplicable because that case involved a non-resident defendant in a quasi in rem action, whereas the present case concerned a deceased registrant.

Laches and Protection of Torrens Titles

The Court further addressed delay and the protective policy of the Torrens system. It noted that private respondent waited nineteen years from the date of registration to assert his claim and that such delay constituted laches. The Court invoked the principle that a Torrens title is conclusive evidence of ownership under Section 49 of Act No. 496 and that title registration aims to quiet land titles. The Court cited precedents including Sy, Sr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Teoville Development Corporation v. IAC, Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals, Villamor v. Court of Appeals, National Grains Authority v. IAC, and Salamat Vda. de Medina v. Cruz, to support the proposition that undue delay and failure to assert rights for a long period is fatal and that titles are strongly presumed valid.

Credibility and Misstatements

The Court also noted factual misstatements in the complaint and publication regarding the registered address of Ching Leng, observing that the record showed an address of No.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 59731)

Parties and Posture

Alfredo Ching was the petitioner and administrator of the estate of deceased Ching Leng who sought relief from the judgments cancelling T.C.T. No. 91137.
The Honorable Court of Appeals and Pedro Asedillo were respondents in the petition for review on certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals' affirmation of the trial court's default judgment.
The present action challenged the trial court's ex parte cancellation of title and reconveyance decree and the subsequent rulings of the Court of Appeals that affirmed that decree.
The petition to the Supreme Court sought nullification of the Court of Appeals' decision and sought dismissal of Civil Case No. 6888-P for lack of jurisdiction.

Key Factual Allegations

A decree of registration, Decree No. N-78716, was issued in May 1960 to Maximo Nofuente and Dominga Lumandan covering a parcel in Paranaque which resulted in T.C.T. No. 2433 and later transfers leading to T.C.T. No. 91137 in favor of Ching Leng on September 18, 1961.
Ching Leng died on October 19, 1965 in Boston, Massachusetts, and his son Alfredo Ching procured letters of administration in Sp. Proc. No. 1956-P after due publication in November and December 1965.
Pedro Asedillo filed Civil Case No. 6888-P on December 27, 1978 seeking reconveyance of the property and cancellation of T.C.T. No. 91137 on the ground of possession.
The trial court permitted service by publication after an amended complaint alleged that the defendant resided abroad, and default judgment was rendered on June 15, 1979 ordering cancellation of T.C.T. No. 91137 and issuance of a new title in favor of Pedro Asedillo.
The allegedly cancelled title was transferred and a new TCT was issued in favor of Pedro Asedillo, who sold the property to Villa Esperanza Development, Inc. on September 3, 1979.
Alfredo Ching learned of the judgment on October 29, 1979 and filed motions and petitions that produced an initial setting aside of the judgment, a subsequent reinstatement, unsuccessful relief in the Court of Appeals, and ultimately this petition to the Supreme Court.

Procedural History

The trial court rendered a default judgment on June 15, 1979 cancelling T.C.T. No. 91137 and ordering reconveyance to Pedro Asedillo.
The trial court served the decision by publication on July 2, 9 and 16, 1979 pursuant to Section 7, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court.
An order dated May 29, 1980 initially set aside the judgment, but that order was reconsidered and reversed on September 2, 1980, thereby reinstating the June 15, 1979 decision.
Alfredo Ching pursued remedies by motion for reconsideration, an original petition to the Court of Appeals, and ultimately a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Alfredo Ching's original petition and denied reconsideration before the present Supreme Court petition was filed and taken up.

Issues Presented

Whether service of summons and judgment by publication could bind a deceased defendant and/or his estate in an action for reconveyance and cancellation of title.
Whether an action for reconveyance and cancellation of Torrens title is in personam or otherwise amenable to service by publication.
Whether ex parte proceedings for reconveyance and cancellation of title were proper under the circumstances.