25. TOMASA AGUILAR, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, v. EMILIANO CAOAGDAN, ET AL., defendants-appellants. GR L-12580 April 30, 1959.

FACTS: Januario Hermitano sought to recover from defendants the possession of the portions of the land they are occupying, claiming that the land in question originally belonged to Tomasa Aguilar and was later sold to him (Hermitano), he now being the present owner. To defeat the action of the plaintiff, defendants contended that the certificate of title was procured by Hermitano in bad faith for they were not personally notified of the initial registration proceedings as regards said land. ISSUE: Whether or not there is a need of personal notification in registration proceedings.

27.

FRANCISCO v. CA

FACTS: The petitioner had a land surveyed from a private surveyor only to find out that there is already a survey plan of the said land in the name of the respondents and that a title was already issued to them. Petitioner now contends that being an adjacent owner of the land in question they were not notified of the previous survey. The Surveyors Certificate reveals that notice was given to the following: Jose Cruz, Diego Francisco (petitioners father), and Santol Creek. It is noted that both Jose Cruz and Diego Francisco were already dead from the date of the notice and Santol Creek is not a person or entity. It was established that the petitioner and her brother and sisters who are the actual occupants of the adjacent land of the land in question were not notified of the survey. Petitioner did not read the publication in the Official Gazette and the former mayor of Teresa who is the owner of the property across the Santol Creek testified that Diego Francisco was in possession of the land throughout his lifetime and after his death his heirs and not the respondents.

HOLDING: Such procedural defect of lack of personal notification in registration proceedings cannot affect the jurisdiction of the court because such proceedings have the nature of actions in rem, and not actions in personam. Since a land registration proceeding is in rem, the decree of registration is binding upon and exclusive against all persons including the Government and its branches, irrespective of whether or not they were personally notified of the filing of the application for registration or have appeared and filed an answer to said application, because all interested parties are considered notified by the publication required by law.

ISSUE: Whether or not the applicant secured thru fraud the land decree for not serving notice of survey to the interesting parties. HOLDING: It appears that Jose Cruz and Diego Francisco are both dead when the alleged notice was served and that Santol Creek could not appear for the hearing because it is not a person. The court finds it absurd that the respondent claims that they complied with the requisite of serving notice to interested parties on the land in question. It is clear that the petitioner and her brothers and sisters who are the actual occupants of the adjacent lots were not notified of the registration proceeding applied for by the petitioner. It is clear that no notice was sent to the actual owner and possessor of the land in question allowing the respondents to successfully register the land in their name. It was also established that respondents did not state the true adjoining owners of the North, East and West of the land in question. The court find that the respondents have the motive of concealing their application for registration from the real owners of these said lands by not sending them the actual notice of their application for registration to prevent them from filing their opposition. The court cited the failure of the surveyors of the respondent to comply with the requirement of finding out the actual occupants and boundary owners of the said land. The court held that the registration of land cannot serve as a protecting mantle to cover and shelter bad faith.

26. BENJAMINA GARCIA ET AL., petitioners, v. HON. ELOY BELLO and PEDRO DE GUZMAN, respondents GR L-21355 FACTS: Pedro de Guzman instituted a land registration proceeding which was decided by the court in favor of him and thereafter issued an original certificate of title. After said decision, petitioners Garcia took possession of the aforementioned land. De Guzman challenged the possession, and shortly thereafter, Judge Bello authorized the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of De Guzman, but such writ was never executed. Subsequently, Judge Bello issued a writ of execution which was challenged by the Garcias on the ground that the decision in the above mentioned land registration proceeding is not binding upon them because they were not parties therein. ISSUE: Whether or not the contention of petitioners Garcia is devoid of merit. HOLDING: Yes. A land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and, accordingly, the decision therein rendered is binding upon the whole world.