ALFREDO CHING, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS & PEDRO ASEDILLO
FACTS:
Spouses Maximo Nofuente and Dominga Lumandan registered a parcel of land situated at Sitio of Kay-Biga Barrio of San Dionisio,
Municipality of Paranaque, Province of Rizal. In August 1960, 5/6 portion of the property was reconveyed by said spouses to Francisco,
Regina, Perfects, Constancio and Matilde all surnamed Nofuente. By virtue of a sale to Ching Leng the reconveyance with the
Nofuentes were cancelled. On October 19, 1965, Ching Leng died. His legitimate son Alfredo Ching filed with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal (a petition for administration of the estate of deceased Ching Leng. Notice of hearing on the petition was duly
published. No oppositors appeared at the hearing, consequently after presentation of evidence petitioner Alfredo Ching was appointed
administrator of Ching Leng's estate. Thirteen (13) years after Ching Leng's death, a suit against him was commenced on by private
respondent Pedro Asedillo for reconveyance of the abovesaid property and it was given to Ching Leng's last known address is No. 44
Libertad Street, Pasay City (not No. 441 Libertad Street, Pasay City, as alleged in private respondent's complaint). An amended
complaint was filed by private respondent against Ching Leng and/or Estate of Ching Leng alleging "That on account of the fact that the
defendant has been residing abroad up to the present, and it is not known whether the defendant is still alive or dead, he or his estate
may be served by summons and other processes only by publication;" Summons by publication to Ching Leng and/or his estate was
directed by the trial court. Despite the lapse of the sixty (60) day period within which to answer defendant failed to file a responsive
pleading and on motion of counsel for the private respondent, the court, allowed the presentation of evidence ex-parte. A judgment by
default was rendered in favor of the plaintiff declaring Pedro Asedillo to be the true and absolute owner of the property covered.
ISSUES:
1 .Whether or not a dead man Ching Leng and/or his estate may be validly served with summons and decision by publication. And 2.
Whether or not an action for reconveyance of property and cancellation of title is in personam, and if so, would a dead man and/or his
estate be bound by service of summons and decision by publication.
HELD:
An action to redeem, or to recover title to or possession of, real property is not an action in rem or an action against the whole world,
like a land registration proceeding or the probate of a will; it is an action in personam, so much so that a judgment therein is binding
only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. Actions in personam and actions in rem
differ in that the former are directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments, while the latter are directed against the
thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world. An action to recover a
parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a
tangible thing. Private respondent's action for reconveyance and cancellation of title being in personam, the judgment in question is null
and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the deceased defendant Ching Leng. Verily, the action was commenced thirteen (13)
years after the latter's death.The decision of the lower court insofar as the deceased is concerned, is void for lack of jurisdiction over his
person. He was not, and he could not have been validly served with summons. He had no more civil personality. His juridical
personality, that is fitness to be subject of legal relations, was lost through death (Arts. 37 and 42 Civil Code).The real purpose of the
Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is registered, the owner may rest
secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing
his land A Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein (Section 49, Act 496). A strong
presumption exists that Torrens titles are regularly issued and that they are valid. A Torrens title is incontrovertible against any
"information possessoria" or title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the title