G.R. No.

5246 September 16, 1910

MANUELA GREY ALBA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs.
ANACLETO R. E LA CRU!, objector-appellee.
Ramon Salinas, for appellants. Aniceto G. Reyes, for appellee.
TRENT, J.:
These petitioners, Manuela, Jose, Juan, and Francisco, surnamed
Grey y Alba, are the only heirs of Doa !e"unda Alba #lemente
and $onorato Grey, deceased. %emedios Grey y Alba, a sister of
the petitioners, &as married on the '(st day of March, ()*+, to
,icente %eyes and died on the (+th of July, ()*-, &ithout leavin"
any heirs e.cept her husband. The four petitioners, as coo&ners,
sou"ht to have re"istered the follo&in"-described property/
A parcel of land situated in the barrio of Talampas, municipality of
0aliua", 1rovince of 0ulacan, upon &hich are situated three
houses and one camarin of li"ht material, havin" a superficial area
of -' hectares, -( ares, and '' centares2 bounded on the north by
the hi"h&ay 3calzada4 of Talampas and the lands of %ita %ui5
Mateo2 on the east by the lands of the said %ita %ui5 Mateo,
$ermene"ildo 1rado, 1olicarpo de Jesus, and a stream called
!apan"0uslut2 on the south by the same stream and the lands of
the capellania2 and on the &est by the stream called
!apan"0uslut, and the lands of ,icente de la #ru5, Jose #amacho
and Domin"o %ui5 Mateo.
This parcel of a"ricultural land is used for the raisin" of rice and
su"ar cane and is assessed at 6(,*** 7nited !tates currency. The
petition, &hich &as filed on the (8th of December, ()*9, &as
accompanied by a plan and technical description of the above-
described parcel of land.
A"ter #e$r%&' t#e proo"( pre(e&te), t#e *o+rt e&tere), o& t#e
12t# o" ,ebr+$r-, 190., $ )e*ree %& $**or)$&*e /%t# t#e
pro0%(%o&( o" p$r$'r$p# 6 o" (e*t%o& 54 o" A*t No. 926,
)%re*t%&' t#$t t#e 1$&) )e(*r%be) %& t#e pet%t%o&er be
re'%(tere) %& t#e &$me( o" t#e "o+r pet%t%o&er(, $( *oo/&er(,
(+b2e*t to t#e +(+"r+*t+$r- r%'#t o" 3%*e&te Re-e(, /%)o/er o"
Reme)%o( Gre-.
:n the (9th of June, ()*8, Anacleto%atilla de la #ru5 filed a
motion in the #ourt of ;and %e"istration as<in" for a revision of the
case, includin" the decision, upon the "round that he is the
absolute o&ner of the t&o parcels of land &hich are described in
said motion, and &hich, accordin" to his alle"ations, are included
in the lands decreed to the petitioners. $e alle"ed that the decree
of February (', ()*8, &as obtained maliciously and fraudulently by
the petitioners, thereby deprivin" him of said t&o parcels of land.
$e further alle"ed that he &as the absolute o&ner of the t&o
parcels of land, havin" inherited them from his father, 0aldomero
%. de la #ru5, &ho had a state "rant for the same. $e therefore
as<ed, under the provisions of section +8 of the ;and %e"istration
Act 3=o. >)94, a revision of the case, and that the said decree be
modified so as to e.clude the t&o parcels of land described in said
motion. The ;and #ourt upon this motion reopened the case, and
after hearin" the additional evidence presented by both parties,
rendered, on the '+rd of =ovember, ()*8, its decision modifyin"
the former decree by e.cludin" from the same the t&o parcels of
land claimed by Anacleto%atilla de la #ru5. ,rom t#%( )e*%(%o&
$&) 2+)'me&t t#e pet%t%o&er( $ppe$1e) $&) &o/ %&(%(t, "%r(t,
t#$t t#e tr%$1 *o+rt erre) %& reope&%&' t#e *$(e $&) mo)%"-%&'
%t( )e*ree )$te) t#e 12t# o" ,ebr+$r-, 190., "or t#e re$(o& t#$t
($%) )e*ree /$( &ot obt$%&e) b- me$&( o" "r$+)4 $&), (e*o&),
t#$t t#e *o+rt erre) %& #o1)%&' t#$t t#e t/o p$r*e1( o" 1$&)
)e(*r%be) %& t#e $ppe11ee5( mot%o& $re &ot t#e%r propert-.
?t &as a"reed by counsel that the t&o small parcels no& in dispute
forma part of the land described in the petition and &ere included
in the decree of February (', ()*8, and that the petitioners are the
o&ners of the remainder of the land described in the said decree.
The petitioners inherited this land from their parents, &ho ac@uired
the same, includin" the t&o small parcels in @uestion, by purchase,
as is evidenced by a public document dated the '9th of =ovember,
1.64, duly e.ecuted before Francisco ?riarte, alcalde mayor and
jud"e of the #ourt of First ?nstance of the 1rovince of 0ulacan.
B$1)omero R. )e 1$ Cr+6, "$t#er o" t#e $ppe11ee, obt$%&e) %&
m$r*#, 1.95, $ (t$te 'r$&t "or (e0er$1 p$r*e1( o" 1$&),
%&*1+)%&' t#e t/o p$r*e1( %& 7+e(t%o&. T#%( 'r$&t /$( )+1-
%&(*r%be) %& t#e o1) re'%(ter o" propert- %& B+1$*$& o& t#e 6t#
o" Apr%1 o" t#e ($me -e$r.
?t is admitted that at the time the appellants presented their petition
in this case the appellee &as occupyin" the t&o parcels of land
no& in @uestion. ?t is also admitted that the name of the appellee
does not appear in the said petition as an occupant of the said t&o
parcels. The petitioners insist that the appellee &as occupyin"
these parcels as their tenant and for this reason they did not
include his name in their petition, as an occupant, &hile the
appellee contends that he &as occupyin" the said parcels as the
absolute o&ner under the estate "rant by inheritance.
The court belo& held that the failure on the part of the petitioners
to include the name of the appellee in their petition, as an
occupant of these t&o parcels of land, &as a violation of section '(
of Act =o. >)9, and that this constituted fraud &ithin the meanin"
of section +8 of said ;and %e"istration Act. The trial court further
held that the "rant from the estate should prevail over the public
document of purchase of (89>.
T#e mot#er o" t#e pet%t%o&er( )%e) o& No0ember 15, 1..14
t#e%r "$t#er )%e) pr%or to t#$t t%me. M$&+e1$, t#e o1)e(t o" t#e
pet%t%o&er(, /$( $bo+t (%8 -e$r( o" $'e /#e& t#e%r mot#er
)%e). So t#e(e *#%1)re& /ere m%&or( /#e& t#e "$t#er o" t#e
$ppe11ee obt$%&e) t#e e(t$te 'r$&t.
:n the (+th of June, (88', Jose Grey, uncle and representative of
the petitioners, &ho &ere then minors, rented the land o&ned by
the petitionersA deceased parents to one ?rineo Jose for a period of
three years. :n the '+d of March, (8)-, the said 9o(e Gre-, $(
t#e repre(e&t$t%0e o" t#e pet%t%o&er(,re&te) t#e ($me 1$&) "or
$ per%o) o" (%8 -e$r( to B$1)omero R. )e 1$ Cr+6, "$t#er o" t#e
$ppe11ee. This rental contract &as duly e.ecuted in &ritin". This
land &as cultivated durin" these si. years by 0aldomero %. de la
#ru5 and his children, one of &hom is the appellee. :n the (>th of
December, ()*-, Jose Grey, for himself and the other petitioners,
rented the same land to Bstanislao %. de la #ru5 for a period of
t&o years. Bstanislao de la #ru5 on enterin" into this rental
contract &ith Jose Grey did so for himself and his brothers, one of
&hom is the appellee. Chile the appellee admits that his father
and brother entered into these rental contracts and did, in fact,
cultivate the petitionersA land, nevertheless he insists that the t&o
small parcels in @uestion &ere not included in these contracts. ?n
the rental contract bet&een the uncle of the petitioners and he
father of the appellee the land is not described. ?n the rental
contract bet&een Jose Grey, one of the petitioners, and Bstanislao
%. de la #ru5, brother of the appellee, the t&o small parcels of land
in @uestion are included, accordin" to the description "iven therein.
This &as found to be true by the court belo&, but the said court
held that as this contract &as made by Bstanislao %. de la #ru5 it
&as not bindin" upon Anacleto %. de la #ru5, the appellee.
The t&o small parcels of land in @uestion &ere purchased by the
parents of the petitioners in (89>, as is evidenced by the public
document of purchase and sale of that year. The same t&o parcels
of land are included in the state "rant issued in favor of
0aldomero%atilla de la #ru5 in (8)-. T#%( 'r$&t /$( obt$%&e)
$"ter t#e )e$t# o" t#e pet%t%o&er(5 p$re&t( $&) /#%1e t#e- /ere
m%&or(. So %t %( *1e$r t#$t t#e pet%t%o&er( #o&e(t1- be1%e0e)
t#$t t#e $ppe11ee /$( o**+p-%&' t#e ($%) p$r*e1( $( t#e%r
1e((ee $t t#e t%me t#e- pre(e&te) t#e%r $pp1%*$t%o& "or
re'%(tr$t%o&. T#e- )%) &ot $*t %& b$) "$%t#, &or /%t# $&-
"r$+)+1e&t %&te&t, /#e& t#e- om%tte) to %&*1+)e %& t#e%r
$pp1%*$t%o& t#e &$me o" t#e $ppe11ee $( o&e o" t#e o**+p$&t(
o" t#e 1$&). T#e- be1%e0e) t#$t %t /$( &ot &e*e(($r- &or
re7+%re) t#$t t#e- %&*1+)e %& t#e%r $pp1%*$t%o& t#e &$me( o"
t#e%r te&$&t(. 7nder these circumstances, did the court belo&
commit an error in reopenin" this case in June, ()*8, after its
decree had been entered in February of the same yearD

The application for the re"istration is to be in /r%t%&', (%'&e) and

(/or& to b- t#e $pp1%*$&t, or by some person duly authori5ed in
his behalf. ?t is to contain an $**+r$te )e(*r%pt%o& o" t#e 1$&). ?t
shall contain the &$me %& "+11 $&) t#e $))re(( o" t#e $pp1%*$&t,
and also the &$me( $&) $))re((e( of all occupantsof land and
of all adjoinin" o&ners, if <no&n2 and, if not <no&n, it shall state
&hat search has been made to find them. ?n the form of notice
"iven by statute, &hich shall be s&orn to, the applicant is re@uired
to state and set forth clearly $11 mort'$'e( or e&*+mbr$&*e(
affectin" said land, if any, the r%'#t( $&) %&tere(t( , le"al or
e@uitable, %& t#e po((e((%o&, rem$%&)er, re0er(%o&, or
e8pe*t$&*- o" $11 per(o&(, /%t# t#e%r &$me( %& "+11, to'et#er
/%t# t#e%r p1$*e o" re(%)e&*e $&) po(t o""%*e $))re((e( . 7pon
receipt of the application the cler< shall cause &ot%*e of the fillin"
to be published t&ice in the :fficial Ga5ette. This published notice
shall be directed to all persons appearin" to have an interest in the
land sou"ht to be re"istered and to the adjoinin" o&ners, and also
"to all whom it may concern." ?n addition to the notice in the :fficial
Ga5ette the ;and #ourt shall, &ithin seven days after said
publication, cause a copy of the notice, in !panish, to be m$%1e) by
the cler< to every person named in the application &hose address
is <no&n2 to cause a duly attested copy of the notice, in !panish,
to be po(te) in a conspicuous place on every parcel of land
included in the application, and in a conspicuous place on the chief
municipal buildin" of the to&n in &hich the land is situated. The
court may also cause other or further notice of the application to be
"iven in such manner and to such persons as it may deem proper.
The certificate of the cler< that he has served the notice as
directed by the court by publication or mailin" shall be conclusive
proof of such service. Cithin the time allo&ed in the notices, if no
person appears and ans&ers, the court may at once, upon motion
of the applicant, no reason to the contrary appearin", order a
"eneral default. 0y the description in the published notice Eto all
&hom it may concern,E and by e.press provisions of la& Eall the
&ord are made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the
default an order.E ?f the court, after hearin", finds that the applicant
has title, as stated in his application, a decree or re"istration shall
be entered.
E0er- )e*ree o" re'%(tr$t%o&(#$11 b%&) t#e 1$&) $&) 7+%et t%t1e
t#ereto, (+b2e*t o&1- to t#e e8*ept%o&( (t$te) %& t#e "o11o/%&'
(e*t%o&. :t (#$11 be *o&*1+(%0e +po& $&) $'$%&(t all persons ,
%&*1+)%&' t#e :&(+1$r Go0er&me&t, $&) $11 t#e br$&*#e(
t#ereo", /#et#er me&t%o&e) b- &$me %& t#e $pp1%*$t%o&,
&ot%*e, or *%t$t%o&, or %&*1+)e) %& t#e 'e&er$1 )e(*r%pt%o& "to
all whom it may concern." S+*# )e*ree (#$11 &ot be ope&e)b-
re$(o& o" t#e $b(e&*e, %&"$&*-, or ot#er )%($b%1%t- o" $&-
per(o& $""e*te) t#ereb-, &or b- $&- pro*ee)%&'( %& $&- *o+rt
"or re0er(%&' 2+)'me&t( or )e*ree(4 (+b2e*t, #o/e0er, to t#e
r%'#t o" $&- per(o& )epr%0e) o" 1$&) or o" $&- e(t$te or
%&tere(t t#ere%& b- )e*ree o" re'%(tr$t%o& obtained by fraud to
"%1e %& t#e Co+rt o" L$&) Re'%(tr$t%o& $ pet%t%o& "or re0%e/
/%t#%& o&e -e$r. . . . ;Se*. <. o" A*t No. 496.=
The appellee is not included in any of the e.ceptions named in
section +8 referred to above.
?t &ill be seen that the applicant is re@uired to mention not only the
outstandin" interest &hich he admits but also all claims of interest,
thou"h denied by him. 0y e.press provision of la& the &orld are
made parties defendant by the description in the notice Eto all
&hom it may concern.E
Althou"h the appellee, occupyin" the t&o small parcels of land in
@uestion under the circumstances as &e have set forth, &as not
served &ith notice, he &as made a party defendant by publication2
and the enterin" of a decree on the ('th of February, ()*8, must
be held to be conclusive a"ainst all persons, includin" the
appellee, &hether his 3appelleeAs4 name is mentioned in the
application, notice, or citation.
The said decree of February (', ()*8, should not have been
opened on account of the absence, infancy, or other disability of
any person affected thereby, and could have been opened only on
the "round that the said decree had been obtained by fraud. That
decree &as not obtained by fraud on the part of the applicants,
inasmuch as they honestly believed that the appellee &as
occupyin" these t&o small parcels of land as their tenant. :ne of
the petitioner &ent upon the premises &ith the surveyor &hen the
ori"inal plan &as made.
1roof of constructive fraud is not sufficient to authori5e the #ourt of
;and %e"istration to reopen a case and modify its decree.
!pecific, intentional acts to deceive and deprive anther of his ri"ht,
or in some manner injure him, must be alle"ed and proved2 that is,
there must be actual or positive fraud as distin"uished from
constructive fraud.
The @uestion as to the meanin" of the &ord EfraudE in the
Australian statutes has been fre@uently raised. T&o distinctions
have been noted by the Australian courts2 the first is the distinction
bet&een the meanin" of the &ord EfraudE in the sections relatin" to
the conclusive effect of certificates of title, and its meanin" in the
sections relatin" to the protection of bona fide purchasers from
re"istered proprietors. The second is the distinction bet&een
Ele"al,E Ee@uitable,E or EconstructiveE fraud, and EactualE or EmoralE
fraud. ?n none of the "roups of the sections of the Australian
statutes relatin" to the conclusive effect of certificates of title, and
in &hich fraud is referred to, is there any e.press indication of the
meanin" of Efraud,E &ith the sole e.ception of that of the !outh
Australian "roup. 3$o"" on Australian Torrens !ystem, p. 8+>.4
Cith re"ard to decisions on the sections relatin" to the conclusive
effect of certificates of title, it has been held in some cases that the
EfraudE there mentioned means actual or moral fraud, not merely
constructive or le"al fraud. ?n other cases EfraudE has been said to
include constructive, le"al, and every <ind of fraud. ?n other cases,
a"ainst, <no&led"e of other personsA ri"ht, and the deliberate
ac@uisition of re"istered title in the face of such <no&led"e, has
been held to be EfraudE &hich rendered voidable the certificates of
title so obtained2 and voluntary i"norance is, for this purpose, the
same as <no&led"e. 0ut in none of these three classes of cases
&as there absent the element of intention to deprive another of just
ri"hts, &hich constitutes the essential characteristics of actual F
as distin"uished from le"al-fraud. 3Id., p. 8+-, and cases cited in
notes =os. 8-, 89, 8G, 88, and 8) at bottom of pa"es 8+- and
8+9.4
0y EfraudE is meant actual fraud-dishonesty of some sort.
3Jud"ment of 1rivy #ouncil in Assets #o. vs. Mere %oihi, and
Assets #o. vs. 1anapaCaihopi, decided in March, ()*-, cited by
$o"" in his !upplementary Addendum to his &or< on Australian
Torrens !ystem, supra.4 The same meanin" should be "iven to the
&ord EfraudE used in section +8 of our statutes 3Act =o. >)94.
The @uestion as to &hether any particular transaction sho&s fraud,
&ithin the meanin" of the &ord as used in our statutes, &ill in each
case be a @uestion of fact. Ce &ill not attempt to say &hat acts
&ould constitutes this <ind of fraud in other cases. This must be
determined from the fact an circumstances in each particular case.
The only @uestion &e are called upon to determine, and have
determined, is &hether or not, under the facts and circumstances
in this case, the petitioners did obtain the decree of February (',
()*8, by means of fraud.
?t mi"ht be ur"ed that the appellee has been deprived of his
property &ithout due process of la&, in violation of section - of the
Act of #on"ress of July (, ()*', <no&n as the 1hilippine 0ill,E
&hich provides Ethat no la& shall be enacted in the said ?slands
&hich shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property &ithout
due process of la&.E
The ;and %e"istration Act re@uires that all occupants be named in
the petition and "iven notice by re"istered mail. This did not do the
appellee any "ood, as he &as not notified2 but he &as made a
party defendant, as &e have said, by means of the publication Eto
all &hom it may concern.E ?f this section of the Act is to be upheld
this must be declared to be due process of la&.
Be"ore e8$m%&%&' t#e 0$1%)%t- o" t#%( p$rt o" t#e A*t %t m%'#t be
/e11 to &ote t#e #%(tor- $&) p+rpo(e o" /#$t %( >&o/& $( t#e
?Torre&( L$&) Re'%(tr$t%o& S-(tem.? T#%( (-(tem /$(
%&tro)+*e) %& So+t# A+(tr$1%$ b- S%r Robert Torre&( %& 1.5@
$&) /$( t#ere /or>e) o+t %& %t( pr$*t%*$b1e "orm.
T#e m$%& pr%&*%p1e o" re'%(tr$t%o& %( to m$>e re'%(tere) t%t1e(
%&)e"e$(%b1e. A( /e #$0e ($%), +po& t#e pre(e&t$t%o& %& t#e
Co+rt o" L$&) Re'%(tr$t%o& o" $& $pp1%*$t%o& "or t#e
re'%(tr$t%o& o" t#e t%t1e to 1$&)(, +&)er t#%( (-(tem, t#e t#eor-
o" t#e 1$/ %( t#$t $11 o**+p$&t(, $)2o%&%&' o/&er(, $)0er(e
*1$%m$&t(, $&) ot#er %&tere(te) per(o&( $re &ot%"%e) o" t#e
pro*ee)%&'(, $&) #$0e #$0e $ r%'#t to $ppe$r %& oppo(%t%o& to
(+*# $pp1%*$t%o&. :& ot#er /or)(, t#e pro*ee)%&' %( $'$%&(t
t#e /#o1e /or). T#%( (-(tem /$( e0%)e&t1- *o&(%)ere) b- t#e
Le'%(1$t+re to be $ p+b1%* pro2e*t /#e& %t p$((e) A*t No. 496.
T#e %&tere(t o" t#e *omm+&%t- $t 1$r'e /$( *o&(%)ere) to be
pre"erre) to t#$t o" pr%0$te %&)%0%)+$1(.
At the close of this nineteenth century, all civili5ed nations are
comin" to re"istration of title to land, because immovable property
is becomin" more and more a matter of commercial dealin", and
there can be no trade &ithout security. 3DumasAs ;ectures, p. '+.4
The re"istered proprietor &ill no lon"er have reasons to fear that
he may evicted because his vendor had, un<no&n to him, already
sold the and to a third person. . . The re"istered proprietor may feel
himself protected a"ainst any defect in his vendorAs title. 3Id., p.
'(.4
T#e "o11o/%&' (+mm$r- o" be&e"%t(o" t#e (-(tem o"
re'%(tr$t%o& o" t%t1e(, m$)e b- S%r Robert Torre&(, #$( bee&
"+11- 2+(t%"%e) %& %t( +(eA
,%r(t. :t #$( (+b(t%t+te) (e*+r%t- "or %&(e*+r%t-.
Se*o&). :t #$( re)+*e) t#e *o(t( o" *o&0e-$&*e( "rom
po+&)( to (#%11%&'(, $&) t#e t%me o**+p%e) "rom mo&t#( to
)$-(.
T#%r). :t #$( e8*#$&'e) bre0%t- $&) *1e$r&e(( "or ob(*+r%t-
$&) 0erb%$'e.
,o+rt#. :t #$( (o (%mp1%"%e) or)%&$r- )e$1%&'( t#$t #e /#o #$(
m$(tere) t#e ?t#ree R5(? *$& tr$&($*t #%( o/& *o&0e-$&*%&'.
,%"t#. :t $""or)( prote*t%o& $'$%&(t "r$+).
S%8t#. :t #$( re(tore) to t#e%r 2+(t 0$1+e m$&- e(t$te( #e1)
+&)er 'oo) #o1)%&' t%t1e(, b+t )epre*%$te) %& *o&(e7+e&*e o"
(ome b1+r or te*#&%*$1 )e"e*t, $&) #$( b$rre) t#e
reo**+rre&*e o" $&- (%m%1$r "$+1t(. ;S#e1)o& o& L$&)
Re'%(tr$t%o&, pp. @5, @6.=
The boldest effort to "rapple &ith the problem of simplification of
title to land &as made by Mr. 3after&ards !ir %obert4 Torrens, a
layman, in !outh Australia in (8-G. . . . :& t#e Torre&( (-(tem
title by registration t$>e( t#e p1$*e o" "title by deeds" o" t#e
(-(tem +&)er t#e ?'e&er$1? 1$/. A ($1e o" 1$&), "or e8$mp1e, %(
e""e*te) b- $ re'%(tere) tr$&("er, +po& /#%*# $ *ert%"%*$te o"
t%t1e %( %((+e). T#e *ert%"%*$te %( '+$r$&tee) b- (t$t+te, $&),
/%t# *ert$%& e8*ept%o&(, *o&(t%t+te( %&)e"e$(%b1e t%t1e to t#e
1$&) me&t%o&e) t#ere%&. U&)er t#e o1) (-(tem t#e ($me ($1e
/o+1) be e""e*te) b- $ *o&0e-$&*e, )epe&)%&' "or %t( 0$1%)%t-,
$p$rt "rom %&tr%&(%* "1$/(, o& t#e *orre*t&e(( o" $ 1o&' (er%e(
o" pr%or )ee)(, /%11(, et*. . . . T#e ob2e*t o" t#e Torre&( (-(tem,
t#em, %( to )o $/$- /%t# t#e )e1$-, +&*ert$%&t-, $&) e8pe&(e
o" t#e o1) *o&0e-$&*%&' (-(tem . 3Duffy HBa"leson on The
Transfer of ;and Act, (8)*, pp. ', +, -, G.4
B- ?Torre&(? (-(tem 'e&er$11- $re me$&t t#o(e (-(tem( o"
re'%(tr$t%o& o" tr$&($*t%o&( /%t# %&tere(t %& 1$&) /#o(e
)e*1$re) ob2e*t . . . %(, +&)er 'o0er&me&t$1 $+t#or%t-, to
e(t$b1%(# $&) *ert%"- to t#e o/&er(#%p o" $& $b(o1+te $&)
%&)e"e$(%b1e t%t1e to re$1t-, $&) to (%mp1%"- %t( tr$&("er. ;Bo''
o& A+(tr$1%$& Torre&( (-(tem, supra, pp. 1, 2.=
#ompensation for errors from assurance funds is provided in all
countries in &hich the Torrens system has been enacted. #ases of
error no doubt &ill al&ays occur. The percenta"e of errors, as
compared &ith the number of re"istered dealin"s in Australia, is
very small. ?n =e& !outh Cales there &ere, in (88), '*), 8)>
re"istered dealin"s, the avera"e ris< of error bein" only ' I cents
for each dealin". ?n Jueensland the ris< of error &as only ( I
cents, the number of re"istered dealin"s bein" '++,+*). ?n
Tasmania and in Cestern Australia not a cent &as paid for
compensation for errors durin" the &hole time of operation,
3DumasAs ;ectures, supra, p. )9.4 This system has been adopted
in various countries of the civili5ed &orld, includin" some of the
!tates of the American 7nion, and practical e.perience has
demonstrated that it has been successful as a public project.
The validity of some of the provisions of the statutes adoptin" the
Torrens system has been the subject of judicial decision in the
courts of the 7nited !tates. 31eople vs. #hase, (9- ?ll., -'G2 !tate
vs. Guilbert, -9 :hio !t., -G-2 1eople vs. !imon, (G9 ?ll., (9-2 Tyler
vs. Jud"es, (G- Mass., G(.4
Act =o. >)9 of the 1hilippine #ommission, <no&n as the E;and
%e"istration Act,E &as copied substantially from the
Massachussetts la& of (8)8.
The ?llinois and Massachusetts statutes &ere upheld by the
supreme courts of those !tates.
?t is not enou"h to sho& a procedure to be unconstitutional to say
that &e never heard of it before. 3Tyler vs. Jud"es, supra2
$urtadovs. #alifornia, ((* 7. !., -(9.4
;oo<ed at either from the point of vie& of history or of the
necessary re@uirements of justice, a proceedin" in rem dealin"
&ith a tan"ible res may be instituted and carried to jud"ment
&ithout personal service upon claimants &ithin the !tate or notice
by name to those outside of it, and not encounter any provision of
either constitution. Jurisdiction is secured by the po&er of the court
over the res. As &e have said, such a proceedin" &ould be
impossible, &ere this not so, for it hardly &ould do to ma<e a
distinction bet&een the constitutional ri"hts of claimants &ho &ere
<no&n and those &ho &ere not <no&n to the plaintiff, &hen the
proceedin" is to bar all. 3Tyler vs. Jud"es, supra.4
This same doctrine is annunciated in 1ennoyervs. =eff 3)- 7. !.,
G(>42 The Mary 3) #ranch, ('942 Man<invs. #handler 3' 0roc<.,
('-42 0ro&n vs. ;evee #ommission 3-* Miss., >9842 ' Freeman,
Jud"ments, >th ed., secs. 9*9, 9((.
:" t#e te*#&%*$1 ob2e*t o" t#e (+%t %( to e(t$b1%(# $ *1$%m
$'$%&(t (ome p$rt%*+1$r per(o&, /%t# $ 2+)'me&t /#%*#
'e&er$11-, %& t#eor- $t 1e$(t, b%&)( #%( bo)-, or to b$r (ome
%&)%0%)+$1 *1$%m or ob2e*t%o&, (o t#$t o&1- *ert$%& per(o&( $re
e&t%t1e) to be #e$r) %& )e"e&(e, t#e $*t%o& %( in personam,
$1t#o+'# %t m$- *o&*er& t#e r%'#t to or po((e((%o& o" $
t$&'%b1e t#%&'. :", o& t#e ot#er #$&), t#e ob2e*t %( to b$r
%&)%""ere&t1- $11 /#o m%'#t be m%&)e) to m$>e $& ob2e*t%o& o"
$&- (ort $'$%&(t t#e r%'#t (o+'#t to be e(t$b1%(#e), $&) %"
$&-o&e %& t#e /or1) #$( $ r%'#t to be #e$r) o& t#e (tre&'#t o"
$11e'%&' "$*t( /#%*#, %" tr+e, (#o/ $& %&*o&(%(te&t %&tere(t, t#e
pro*ee)%&' %( in rem. ;T-1er vs. 9+)'e(, supra.=
?n the case of $amilton vs. 0ro&n 3(9( 7. !., '-94 a jud"ment of
escheat &as held conclusive upon persons notified by
advertisement to all persons interested. ?n this jurisdiction, by the
provisions of the #ode of #ivil 1rocedure, Act =o. ()*, a decree
allo&in" or disallo&in" a &ill binds everybody, althou"h the only
notice of the proceedin"s "iven is by "eneral notice to all persons
interested.
The supreme court Massachusetts, in the case of Tyler vs. Jud"es
3supra4, did not rest its jud"ment as to the conclusive effect of the
decree upon the "round that the !tate has absolute po&er to
determine the persons to &hom a manAs property shall "o at his
death, but upon the characteristics of a proceedin" in rem. !o &e
conclude that the proceedin"s had in the case at bar, under all the
facts and circumstances, especially the absolute lac< on the part of
the petitioners of any dishonest intent to deprive the appellee of
any ri"ht, or in any &ay injure him, constitute due process of la&.
A( to /#et#er or &ot t#e $ppe11ee *$& (+**e("+11- m$%&t$%& $&
$*t%o& +&)er t#e pro0%(%o&( o" (e*t%o&( 101 $&) 102 o" t#e
L$&) Re'%(tr$t%o& A*t ;(e*(. 2<65, 2<66, Comp%1$t%o&= /e )o
&ot )e*%)e.
For these reasons &e are of the opinion, and so hold, that the
jud"ment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby
reversed and jud"ment entered in favor of the petitioners in
conformity &ith the decree of the lo&er court of February (', ()*8,
&ithout special rulin" as to costs. ?t is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J., orres, Johnson and !oreland, JJ., concur.