CAOIBES, JR., et al. vs.

CAOIBES-PANTOJA Case Digest

JOSE CAOIBES, JR., et al. v. CORAZON CAOIBES-PANTOJA
496 SCRA 273 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales J.)

to honor their agreement allowing her to be substituted in their stead as applicant in the land
registration proceeding.

The law does not require that the application for registration be amended by
substituting the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" for
the applicant. Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the
property has been conveyed" be a party to the case.

Director of Lands vs. CA [G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997]

FACTS: In 1982, Jose Caoibes Jr., et al. (Caoibes, Jr., et al.) and Corazon Caoibes-Pantoja
(Pantoja) entered to a contract of sale stating that a certain lot will be transferred, ceded and
conveyed by the former in favour of the latter in consideration for a sum of money. The
agreement included the stipulation that Pantoja will be subrogated or substituted to whatever
rights, interests or representations Caoibes Jr., et al. may have pending land registration
proceeding.

Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original registration of his title over 648 square meters of
land under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529. The land registration court in its decision dated
June 13, 1989 dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction, in compliance with the
mandatory provision requiring publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of
general circulation. The case was elevated to respondent Court of Appeals which, set aside the
decision of the trial court and ordered the registration of the title in the name of Teodoro
Abistado. The Court of Appeals ruled that it was merely procedural and that the failure to cause
such publication did not deprive the trial court of its authority to grant the application. The
Director of Lands represented by the Solicitor General thus elevated this recourse to the
Supreme Court.

Fourteen years after the execution of the parties, Pantoja filed a motion to intervene and
be substituted as applicant in the Land Registration Court. The Land Registration Court denied
the motion. Pantoja filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for specific
performance of the agreement. Caoibes, Jr., et al. opposed on the grounds of prescription. The
RTC ruled in favor of Caoibes, Jr., et al. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the
RTC, holding that prescription had not yet set in.
ISSUE: Whether or not the action of for prescription on Pantoja started from the time of the
agreement of the parties
RULING: The law does not require that the application for registration be amended by
substituting the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" for the
applicant. Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been
conveyed" be a party to the case.
He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings. The
only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by
the interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the
application; and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case.
The agreement of the parties is analogous to a deed of sale in favour of Pantoja, it
having transferred ownership for and in consideration of her payment of the loan.. The
agreement having been made through public instrument, the execution was equivalent to the
delivery of the property to Pantoja.
The agreement is of course in consonance with Sec. 22 of P.D. 1529 (Property Registration
Decree which became effective on June 11, 1978). In light of the law and jurisprudence, the
substitution by Pantoja of Caoibes, Jr., et al. as applicant in the land registration case over Lot
2 is not even necessary. All Pantoja has to do is to comply with the requirements under the
above-quoted Sec. 22 of the Property Registration Decree. It was unnecessary for Pantoja to
file the case for specific performance subject of the present petition against Caoibes, Jr., et al.

FACTS:

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Director of Lands is correct that newspaper publication of the notice of initial
hearing in an original land registration case is mandatory.
HELD:
YES. Petition was granted.
RATIO:
The pertinent part of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 requires publication of the
notice of initial hearing. It should be noted further that land registration is a proceeding in
rem. Being in rem, such proceeding requires constructive seizure of the land as
against all persons, including the state, who have rights to or interests in the property. An in
rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. This being so, the process must
strictly be complied with.

The Supreme Court has no authority to dispense with such mandatory requirement. The law is
unambiguous and its rationale clear. Time and again, this Court has declared that where the
law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, vacillation or
equivocation; there is room only for application. There is no alternative. Thus, the application
for land registration filed by private respondents must be dismissed without prejudice to
reapplication in the future, after all the legal requisites shall have been duly complied with.

erroneous and all resurvey within the Cebu Cadastral extension must first be approved by the
Land Management Services of the DENR, Region 7, Cebu City before said resurvey may be
used in court
ISSUE: W/N the 1976 decision constitutes res judicata in Tings application for registration
RULING:
YES. In a registration proceeding instituted for the registration of a private land, with or without
opposition, the judgment of the court confirming the title of the applicant or oppositor, as the
case may be, and ordering its registration in his name constitutes, when final, res judicata
against the whole world. It becomes final when no appeal within the reglementary period is
taken from a judgment of confirmation and registration.

Ting vs Heirs of Diego Lirio

Said lots were involved in Government vs Abran case where SC declared

Consolacion Gomez as the owner. Teodoro and Luis (Consolacions father and son) inherited
the lots. When Teodoro died, Luis executed a Quitclaim in favor of the Gomezes.

In 1981, RTC adjudicated the lots in favor of the Gomezes. Subsequently, RTC
issued an order directing the Chief of the General Land Registration Office to issue the
corresponding decrees of registration over the lots.

In 1984, Perez, Chief of the Division of Original Registration, Land Registration

Commission (now known as the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration),
submitted a report to the RTC stating that the Lots were already covered by homestead patents
issued in 1928 and 1929 and registered under the Land Registration Act. Perez then
recommended that the 1981 order be set aside.

The Gomezes opposed the report, pointing out that no opposition was raised by the
Bureau of Lands during the registration proceedings and the 1981 decision should be
implemented because it had long become final and executor.

FACTS:

In a decision in 1976, CFI granted the application filed by the Lirio spouses for
registration of title to a certain lot
The said decision become final and executor in 1977

In 1982, the judge of CFI directed the Land Registration Commission to issue the
corresponding decree of registration and the certificate of title in favor of the spouses Lirio.

On Febraury 12, 1997, Petitioner Ting filed an application to register title to the same
lot with the RTC of Cebu

The respondents, heirs of Lirio, filed their Answer calling attention to the 1976
decision which had become final and executor in 1977 and which, they argued, barred the filing
of Tings application on the ground of res judicata

The RTC dismissed petitioners application on the ground of res judicata

Petitioner argues that although the 1976 decision had become final and executor in
1977, no decree of registration has been issued by the Land Registration Authority.

Petitioner contends that the LRA has not issued the decree of registration and that a
certain Engr. Rafaela Belleza claimed that the survey of the Cebu Cadastral Extension is

Atty. Gomez vs Court of Appeals

FACTS:
Atty. Gomez et al applied for registration of several lots before RTC

RTC then set aside its earlier decision.

CA affirmed the new decision of RTC holding that 1) prior to the issuance of the
decree of registration, RTC Judge has still the power and control over the decision he
rendered; 2) The finality of an adjudication of land in a registration or cadastral case takes
place only after the expiration of the one-year period after entry of the final decree of
registration

Gomez et al argued that 1) under Sec 30 and 32 of PD 1529, the 5 Aug 1981
decision having become final, it may no longer be reopened, reviewed, much less, set aside; 2)
Perez has no alternative but to issue the decrees of registration because his duty is purely
ministerial; 3) "the law of the case" is the decision in Govt v. Abran, which held that the lands
adjudicated to Consolacion Gomez were not public lands thus, they could not have been
acquired by holders of homestead titles as against them; 4) by sustaining the 5 Aug 1981
decision, the homestead title holders may still vindicate their rights by filing a separate civil
action for cancellation of titles and for reconveyance in a court of ordinary civil jurisdiction

ISSUE: Would finality of the decision adjudicating the land to the Gomezes bar the RTC from
setting it aside?
HELD:

NO. Adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does not

become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility, until after the expiration of 1 year after the entry

of the final decree of registration. As long as a final decree has not been entered by the Land
Registration Commission and the period of 1 year has not elapsed from date of entry of the
decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceeding
continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it.

Duty of the land registration officials to issue the decree is NOT purely ministerial. If
land registration officials are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance
of the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to the court. They act, in this respect, as officials
of the court.

The lots were not private lands of Consolacion Gomez when homestead patents
were issued over them in 1928-1929. Govt vs. Abran, is not "the law of the case." It was
promulgated only on 31 Dec 1931.

The Gomezes can be the ones to vindicate their rights instead. If they are the true
owner, they may bring an action to have the ownership or title to land judicially settled.