ADEZ REALTY INC.

VS COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
This is a petition filed by herein petitioner in order to set
aside the decision of the Court of Appeals granting the title of
the subject lots to the respondent Eugenio even when the
same has already become final and executory as the appeal
was not filed within the reglementary period. It raised two
issues namely, whether the accused-appellant of Morong,
Rizal,
may
acquire
jurisdiction
over
reconstitution
proceedings involving real property situated in Quezon City,
and whether publication of the notice of the petition in two
(2) successive issues of the Official Gazette and its posting in
the bulletin board of the accused-appellant of Morong, Rizal,
is sufficient compliance with Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 26.

the whole world that such a petition has been filed and that
whoever is minded to oppose it for good cause may do so
within thirty (30) days before the date set by the court for
hearing the petition. It is the publication of such notice that
brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the
court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it." Thus, notice of
hearing by proper publication in the Official Gazette is
sufficient to clothe the court with jurisdiction, and the mere
fact that a person purporting to have a legitimate claim in
the property did not receive personal notice is not sufficient
ground
to
invalidate
the
proceedings.

Heirs of Manuel Roxas v Court of Appeals

Facts:

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner may still assail the CA

decision.
Held:
The court ruled that res judicata sets in since the decision
rendered by the CA has already become final and executory,
since the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the
reglementary period. Moreover, the petition raises the same
issues and facts which has already been decided by the
respondent court.
Besides, as early as 1910, in Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 9 We
already ruled that land registration proceedings are
proceedings in rem, not in personam, and therefore it is not
necessary to give personal notice to the owners or claimants
of the land sought to be registered, in order to vest the
courts with power or authority over the res. 10 Thus, while it
may be true that no notice was sent by registered mail to
petitioner when the judicial reconstitution of title was sought,
such failure, however, did not amount to a jurisdictional
defect. The purpose of the publication of the notice of the
petition for reconstitution in the Official Gazette is to apprise

Maguesun Management and Development Corporation filed

an application for Registration of two parcels of unregistered
land located in Tagaytay City in the Regional Trial Court which
it bought from Zenaida Melliza who in turn, also bought the
said lands from Trinidad de Leon vda de Roxas, the petitioner
herein. Both sales are evidenced by a Deed of Sale. With the
application, the Land registration authority sent notices of
initial hearing to to Hilario Luna, Jose Gil and Leon Luna on
the basis of Maguesun Corporation's application for
registration. Since Trinidad de Leon vda. de Roxas was not
named as an adjoining owner, occupant or adverse claimant,
she was not sent a notice of the proceedings. Publication
both in the Official Gazette and News Weekly then followed.
Order of general default was issued, and RTC proceeded with
the case. During the proceedings, the LRA reported that the
subject lands had already been previously applied for by
Manuel Roxas and his wife Trinidad but no decision was
rendered. Hence, the RTC granted the application of
Maguesun which became final and executory. It subsequently
released an order for issuance of the decree but it was done
before the application of Roxas was dismissed. It was only

when they were asked to vacate the lot that Trinidad learned
of the sale and application of Maguesun. With this, Trinidad
filed in RTC a petition for review because she claims that she
has never sold the lot, and her signatures were forged on the
documents Maguesun presented as the president was her
niece. Also, she alleged that the latter intentionally removed
her name so that she would not receive any notice and
present herself as an adverse claimant. The RTC dismissed
the case on the ground that it was Melizza who committed
fraud, not Maguesun. Moreover, the RTC reasoned that she
has no longer been paying taxes, and has abandoned the
registration case thus indicates that she no longer has an
interest in the subject lots. On appeal, the CA affirmed RTC
citing that there was no actual or extrinsic fraud which is
required in order to annul a judgment or review a decree of
registration. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: whether or not private respondent Maguesun

Corporation committed actual fraud in obtaining a decree of
registration over two unregistered parcels of land in Tagaytay
City, actual fraud being the only ground to reopen or review a
decree of registration.

Held:
Petition is with merit.
The Court ruled that under the Property Registration Decree,
registration of lands decision does not become final and
incontrovertible until the expiration of one year after the
entry of the final decree. Before such time, the decision
remains under the control and sound discretion of the court
rendering the decree, which court after hearing, may set
aside the decision or decree and adjudicate the land to
another party. It recognizes fraud as a valid ground for
reopening and revising a decree of registration provided that
it be filed within one year, from the date of entry of said

decree, that the petitioner has a real and dominical right and
the property has not yet been transferred to an innocent
purchaser.
The court discussed the kinds of fraud: Fraud is of two kinds:
actual or constructive. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from
an intentional deception practiced by means of the
misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.
[19]
Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because of its
detrimental effect upon public interests and public or private
confidence, even though the act is not done or committed
with an actual design to commit positive fraud or injury upon
other persons.[20]
Fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Fraud is
regarded as intrinsic where the fraudulent acts pertain to an
issue involved in the original action, or where the acts
constituting the fraud were or could have been litigated
therein, and is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party
from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the
court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to
the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured,
so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy.
[21]
Extrinsic fraud is also actual fraud, but collateral to the
transaction sued upon.[22]
The distinctions are significant because only actual fraud
or extrinsic fraud has been accepted as grounds for a
judgment to be annulled or, as in this case, a decree of
registration reopened and reviewed. Persons who were
fraudulently deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the
original registration case are entitled to a review of a decree
of registration.
Failure and intentional omission of the applicants to
disclose the fact of actual physical possession by another
person constitutes an allegation of actual fraud. [28] Likewise,
it is fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact, upon which
benefit is obtained to the prejudice of a third person. And the

court found that this is what was committed by Maguesun.

The SC found that on the original application, Roxas was
intentionally omitted as adverse claimant, but when it
submitted the same document to SC, the name Roxas was
found. Section 15 of Presidential Decree No 1529 also
requires the applicant for registration to state the full names
and addresses of all occupants of the land and those of
adjoining owners, if known and if not known, the extent of
the search made to find them. Respondent corporation
likewise failed to comply with this requirement of law.
Moreover, it stated in its application that the lot is
unoccupied when in fact the caretaker was on the said lot
which constitutes another fraud. Through such misfeasance,
the Roxas family was kept ignorant of the registration
proceedings involving their property, thus effectively
depriving them of their day in court.

The court also ruled that Maguesun did not comply with
the publication requirements, as it did not publish in a
newspaper of general circulation but merely on News Weekly.
Although publication in the OG is enough for the court to
acquire jurisdiction, the fact that publication was not made in
a newspaper of general circulation is material and relevant in
assessing the applicant's right or title to the land.