DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS REYES

68 SCRA 177

TOPIC: Form of Notice and when it takes effect

FACTS: Alipio Alinsurin, later substituted by Parañaque Investment and

Development Corporation, sought to register under Act 496, a parcel of land
indisputably included within the area reserved for military purposes under
Presidential Proclamation No.237, dated December 19, 1955. Applicant
claimed that his predecessors acquired the land by virtue of a possessory
information title issued during the Spanish Regime on March 5, 1895. The
application was opposed by the Government. The lower court adjudicated
(a) 2/3 portion of the land in favor of the corporation, subject to the rights of
one Ariosto Santos per a manifestation submitted in court, and (b) 1/3 portion
to Roman Tamayo. Within the extended period, the Government filed the
corresponding record on appeal, copy of which was duly served upon the
corporation and Tamayo. Pending approval of the Record on Appeal, and on
motion of the corporation and of Tamayo, the lower court directed the
issuance of a registration decree of the entire parcel applied for, 1/3 pro-
indiviso in favor of Tamayo, and 2/3 proindiviso in favour of the corporation,
and declared that as to Tamayo's share, the court's decision had become
final, but as to the share of the corporation, the registration shall be subject to
the final outcome of the appeal. Hence, the Government instituted this Special
Civil Action for certiorari and mandamus and the Supreme Court issued a writ
of preliminary injunction restraining the lower court from issuing a writ of
possession, the corporation and Tamayo from exercising acts of ownership
over the property, and the register of deeds from accepting for registration
documents on the land until the government shall have filed a notice of lis
pendens. During the pendency of the appeal in the registration case, a certain
Honofre A.Andrada and others filed with the Court of First Instance a complaint
against the corporation and Tamayo for reconveyance of a portion of the
land in question. The trial court assumed jurisdiction over, and decided, the
case in favor of Andrada. Pursuant thereto, but in violation of the Supreme
Court's injunction (in L-27594), the corporation executed a subdivision plan of
the parcel subject of the land registration, and the trial court ordered the
Register of Deeds to cancel the original certificate of title and to issue new titles
to Andrada, et al., "free from all liens and encumbrances.

ISSUE: Whether or not the execution pending appeal is applicable?

RULING: The court held that: 1. NOTICE OF APPEAL; FAILURE TO SERVE APPELLEE
WITH NOTICE OFAPPEAL CANNOT IMPAIR RIGHT OF APPEAL, IF APPELLEE WAS
SERVED WITH COPYOF RECORD ON APPEAL. — The failure of appellants to
serve a copy of their notice of appeal to the counsel for one of the several
appellees is not fatal to the appeal,where admittedly, he was served with a
copy of the original, as well as the amended record on appeal in both of which
the notice of appeal is embodied. Such failure cannot impair the right of
appeal, especially if the substantial rights of the adverse party is not impaired
and the appeal taken was from the entire decision which is not severable. 2.
LAND REGISTRATION; EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL NOT APPLICABLE INLAND
REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS. — Execution pending appeal is not applicable
in land registration proceedings. It is fraught with dangerous consequences.
Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real properties upon
reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal. 3.LAND
REGISTRATION; TORRENS TITLE ISSUED BASED ON JUDGMENT THAT ISNOT FINAL IS
A NULLITY. — A Torrens Title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final,
the judgment being on appeal, is a nullity, as it is violative of the explicit
provisions of the Land Registration Act, which requires that a decree shall be
issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and
executory, and it is on the basis of said decree that the register of deeds
concerned issues the corresponding certificate of title. 4. ISSUANCE OF TITLE
DESPITE TIMELY APPEAL IS ERRONEOUS.— The lower court acted without
jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the issuance of a decree of
registration despite the appeal timely taken from the entire decision a quo.