ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST FOR WORLD EVANGELISM INC VS

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH AND CA

file such action. The CFI of Manila ruled in favor of the petitioner
cancelling the notice of adverse claim.

Sept 1963 parties agreed on a Contract of Purchase and Sale of a

parcel of land and building and improvements to be paid in 3
installments as follows

For the first time the respondent upon MR raised the issue of
jurisdiction: GROUNDS: CFI acting as Land registration court have
limited jurisdiction and cannot decide issues to be litigated in
ordinary court.

On September 30 1963 for 29,350.62

September 30, 1964 for 66, 038.90
September 30, 1965 for 198, 116.72
With a condition that if the respondent would pay before the date
stipulated in the 3rd installment a deduction of 25,000 from the
purchase price will be given
Another condition is the automatic rescission of the contract in case
of failure to pay on the date and reconveyance of the land to
petitioner in return the the later will return the amount paid by the
vendee.
Also that the land must only be used for church purposes.
The respondent failed to pay the second installment even after the
extension given.
March 1965 the respondent caused to be recorded in RD of Manila
a NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM in the TCT.
Thus, the petitioner filed in CFI of Manila for the cancellation of the
notice, GROUNDS: When the notice was file the respondent already
lost the in the said property because of the rescission of the
contract due to non payment.

Petitioner filed an action against the respondent in the CFI for

rescission of the contract on August 1967 where the court ordered
the rescission of the contract on the grounds alleged by the
petitioner
At first CA ruled in favor of the petitioner but upon appeal
AFFIRMED the respondents contention on the jurisdiction of the
CFI.
Thus, this review on certiorari.
SC: The contention that CFI has limited jurisdiction no longer holds.
With Sec 2 PD 1529 or Property Registration Decree states that CFI
shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original
registration of title to lands, improvements and interest therein and
OVER ALL PETITIONS FILED AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF
TITLE, WITH POWER TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ALL QUESTIONS
ARISING UPON SUCH APPLICATIONS OR PETITIONS.
On the same note Act 496 Land Registration Act, the CFI sitting as
LRC has the authority to conduct a hearing, receive evidence and
decide controversial matters in view to determine WON the filed
notice of adverse claim is valid SEC 110
RULING: Resolution of CA set aside

Respondent filed an opposition. Upon hearing the petitioner

presented evidences but the respondent did not.
The lower court suspended the resolution for 15 days instructing
the counsel of the respondent to file a civil action in order to thresh
out the question involved in ordinary suit. The respondent failed to

AVERIA VS CAGUIOA
Tomas Averia refuses to participate in the registration proceedings
claiming that the CFI of Lucena acting as a cadastral court had no

1 | Page

competence to act upon the said case under sec 112 of Act 496.
With the refusal of the petitioner the respondent court held the
hearing ex parte and rendered a decision on the basis of the
evidences presented by Veronica Padillo the private respondent
herein.
Thus this action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction, arguing that the lower court had no competence to act
on the registration sought because of the absence of unanimity
among the parties as required by sec 112 of Act 496.
SC held although the interpretation of the petitioner is correct, Act
496 was superseded by PD 1529 where sec 2 of the said act
eliminated the distinction between general jurisdiction vested in
the RTC and limited jurisdiction conferred by the former law when

acting merely as a cadastral court. Purpose is to avoid multiplicity

of suits and to simplify registration proceedings.
But it appeared that the lower court proceeded to hear the case
notwithstanding the manifestation by the petitioner of his intention
to elevate to the SC the question of jurisdiction. The TC should have
given the petitioner the opportunity to do so in the interest of due
process. Arriving to a decision basing only on the evidences
presented by the private respondent without regard to the
evidence of the petitioner.
RULING: Decision of the LC is set aside and ordered to conduct a
new trial

2 | Page