G.R. No. L-61404 March 16, 1987 PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. ARTEMON D.

. LUNA, Presiding Judge, Branch XXXII, CFI, Manila, CITY SHERIFF & DEPUTY SHERIFF SALVADOR DACUMOS, City Hall Arroceros, Manila, and SPS. DRS. DOROTEO & CELESTINA ESPIRITU, respondents. PARAS, J.: FACTS: Respondent Dr. Doroteo Espiritu filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Paramount Insurance Corporation, as surety and Romeo Hechanova as principal. Petitioner filed its answer with cross-claim. During the pendency of the case, petitioner failed to appear for 3 consecutive times despite due notice. Thus, the court allowed respondent to present his evidence ex parte and subsequently ruled that the cross-examination of plaintiffs witness as waived. Respodent Judge rendered decision in favor of respondent, and became final and executory when petitioners didnt appeal. During the motion for execution, fire broke out, that gutted the entire floor of the City Hall of Manila, and no a single record of the said case was saved. Hence, a motion for reconstitution was filed by plaintiff. The respondent court denied motion for reconstitution and granted the motion for execution of judgment. ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner considering nonappearance during the trial. DECISION: Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons. The purpose of summons is to give notice to the defendant or respondent that an action has been commenced against it. The defendant or respondent is thus put on guard as to the demands of the plaintiff or petitioner. In the case at bar, the record indicates beyond doubt that petitioner was adequately given in the case below the necessary notice. It was validly served with summons together with a copy of the complaint. XXX filing of answer with cross claim against Romeo Hechanova is equivalent to voluntary appearance and cured the defect if any, of the summons, (Sec. 23, Rule 15, Rules of Court). WHEREFORE, the Supreme Court dismissed petition for certiorari.

G.R. No. L-27594 February 27, 1976 THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, and the ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. HON. SALVADOR C. REYES, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch III, PARANAQUE INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ROMAN C . TAMAYO, THE COMMISSIONER OF THE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NUEVA ECIJA, respondents. G.R. No. L-28144 February 27, 1976 ALIPIO ALINSUNURIN, now substituted by PARAAQUE INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, applicant-appellee, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY and the ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositors-appellants. ANTONIO, J.: Facts: Melecio Padilla acquired 16,800 hectares, of land situated at the municipality of Laur, Nueva Ecija in 1895 by virtue of a possessory information title issued during the Spanish regime. Upon his death in 1990 , ownership and possession of the subject land was transmitted to his daughter and sole heir Maria Padilla until her death in 1940. Applicant Alipio Alinsunurin, claiming ownership in fee simple by inheritance from the late Maria Padilla, sought the registration of title. Applicant Alipio Alinsunurin filed a motion for substitution of parties, requesting that the Paraaque Investment and Development Corporation be considered as the applicant in his place, it having acquired all his rights, interests, ownership and dominion over the property subject matter of the application. The Director of Lands, Director of Forestry, and the Armed Forces of the Philippines opposed the application, claiming that the applicant was without sufficient title and was not in open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question for at least thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of the application; that approximately 13,957 hectares of said land consist of the military reservation of Fort Magsaysay established under Proclamation No. 237, dated December 10, 1955 of the President. During the trial blueprints of two survey plans were presented, the first blueprint copy of a plan of land as surveyed for Maria Padilla, was not formally offered in evidence, and the second plan of the land, as surveyed for Paraaque Investment and Development Corporation was submitted by the said applicant, but it lacks the approval of the Director of Lands. The lower court rendered decision ordering the land to be registered in favor of (a) Paraaque Investment and Development Corporation, two-thirds (2/3) portion, and (b) Roman C. Tamayo, Filipino citizen, one-third (1/3) portion of the said property. The oppositors Director of Lands, Director of Forestry and the Armed Forces of the Philippines filed a Notice of Appeal from the said decision to the Supreme Court. Hence, the Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction. ISSUE: Whether or not respondents blueprints of the survey plan is valid to claim ownership.

DECISION: The original tracing cloth plan of the land applied for, which must be approved by the Director of Lands, was not submitted in evidence. The submission of such plan is a statutory requirement of mandatory character. Unless a plan and its technical description are duly approved by the Director of Lands, the same are not of much value. It is not the function of the LRC to check the original survey plan as it has no authority to approve original survey plans. If, for any reason, the original tracing cloth plan was forwarded there, the applicant may easily retrieve the same therefrom and submit the same in evidence. This was not done. Obviously the superimposition of the copy of the survey plan of land as surveyed for applicant in the military map of the area under Proclamation No. 237 was for the sole purpose of showing that the land applied for is situated within the area covered by the military reservation of Fort Magsaysay appropriately indicated in the perimeter map of said reservation. But the applicant is not relieved from submitting in evidence the original tracing cloth plan approved by the Director of Lands as required by law. One of the distinguishing marks of the Torrens System is the absolute certainty of the identity of a registered land. Consequently, the primary purpose of the aforesaid requirement is to fix the exact or definite identity of the land as shown in the plain and technical descriptions. Hence, the applicant is not relieved of his duty of submitting the original tracing cloth of the survey plan of the land duly approved by the Director of Lands. It will be noticed that the plan does not bear the approval of any officer authorized by law. Wherefore, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and dismissed the application for registration.

NOTE: TO AVOID CONFUSION THIS CASE FALLS UNDER CHAPTER 6: THE TORRENS CERTIFCATE OF TITLE!!!!!

G.R. No. 107967 March 1, 1994 CONSORCIA TENIO-OBSEQUIO, ORLANDO OBSEQUIO, and MANUEL, REGINA, TUNAY and MELITON, all surnamed OBSEQUIO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, EUFRONIO ALIMPOOS, and PONCIANA ALIMPOOS respondents. REGALADO, J.: Facts: Respondent Eufronio Alimpoos mortgaged subject land to Eduardo Deguro, and to guaranty the loan they delivered the original certificate of title to the latter. Eduardo Deguro and his wife, without the knowledge and consent of herein private respondents, prepared a document of sale and through misrepresentation and other manipulations made it appear that private respondents sold the land to them, and the deed of sale was annotated at the back of the certificate of title. Subsequently, a new TCT was issued in favor of Eduardo. Upon the death of Eduardo Deguro, his heirs sold the subject land to Consorcia Tenio-Obsequio. Consorcia alleged to have purchased the land in good faith and without knowledge of any flaw or defect. Private respondents filed a complaint in the court a quo for recovery of possession and ownership. The lower court ruled in favor of petitioner but was reversed by the Court of Appeals. ISSUE: Whether or not Consorcia Tenio-Obsequio is the rightful owner of the land in dispute. DECISION: The main purpose of the Torrens system is to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry. 11 Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire, rights over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such an outright cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued by the court. Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of property. The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the seller's title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of being told later that

his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not only be unfair to him. What is worse is that if this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of ownership. The further consequence would be that land conflicts could be even more numerous and complex than they are now and possibly also more abrasive, if not even violent. The Government, recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens system, should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law are satisfied. Wherefore, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the court a quo.