Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 179155               April 2, 2014

NICOMEDES J. LOZADA, Petitioner,
vs.
EULALIA BRACEWELL, EDDIE BRACEWELL, ESTELLITA BRACEWELL, JAMES
BRACEWELL, JOHN BRACEWELL, EDWIN BRACEWELL, ERIC BRACEWELL, and HEIRS OF
GEORGE BRACEWELL, Respondents.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari  are the Decision  dated May 23, 2007 and the
1 2

Resolution  dated August 14, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 81075, which
3

affirmed the Decision  dated July 31, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Pifias City,
4

Branch 275 in Civil Case No. LP 98-0025, directing the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to set
aside Decree of Registration No. N-217036 (Decree No. N-217036) and Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) No. 0-78 in the name of petitioner Nicomedes J. Lozada (petitioner), and ordering the latter to
cause the amendment of Plan PSU-129514 as well as segregate therefrom Lot 5 of Plan PSU-
180598.

The Facts

On December 10, 1976, petitioner filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over a
parcel of land covered by Plan PSU-129514, which was granted on February 23, 1989 by the RTC
of Makati City, Branch 134, acting as a land registration court.  Consequently, on July 10, 1997, the
5

LRA issued Decree No. N-217036 in the name of petitioner, who later obtained OCT No. 0-78
covering the said parcel of land. 6

On February 6, 1998, within a year from the issuance of the aforementioned decree, James
Bracewell, Jr. (Bracewell) filed a petition for review of a decree of registration under Section 32 of
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529,  otherwise known as the "Property Registration Decree," before
7

the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 275 (Las Piñas City-RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. LP 98-
0025,  claiming that a portion of Plan PSU-129514, consisting of 3,097 square meters identified as
8

Lot 5 of Plan PSU-180598 (subject lot) – of which he is the absolute owner and possessor – is
fraudulently included in Decree No. N-217036.  He allegedly filed on September 19, 1963 an
9

application for registration and confirmation of the subject lot, as well as of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Plan
PSU-180598, situated in Las Piñas City, which was granted by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 58,
on May 3, 1989.  He further averred that petitioner deliberately concealed the fact that he
10

(Bracewell) is one of the adjoining owners, and left him totally ignorant of the registration
proceedings involving the lots covered by Plan PSU-129514.  Instead of impleading him, petitioner
11

listed Bracewell’s grandmother, Maria Cailles, as an adjoining owner, although she had already died
by that time. 12

In his answer  to the foregoing allegations, petitioner called Bracewell a mere interloper with respect
13

to the subject lot, which the Bureau of Lands had long declared to be part and parcel of Plan PSU-
129514.  He argued that his Plan PSU-129514 was approved way back in 1951 whereas
14

Bracewell’s Plan PSU-180598 was surveyed only in 1960, and stated that the latter plan, in fact,
contained a footnote that a portion known as Lot 5, i.e., the subject lot, is a portion of the parcel of
land covered by Plan PSU-129514. 15

The overlapping was confirmed by LRA Director Felino M. Cortez in his 2nd Supplementary Report
dated August 5, 1996, which was submitted to the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134.  The report,
16

which contains a recommendation that petitioner be ordered to cause the amendment of Plan PSU-
129514 in view of Bracewell’s claims, reads as follows:

COMES NOW the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and to the Honorable Court respectfully
submits this report:

1. LRA records show that a decision was rendered by the Honorable Court on February 23,
1989, confirming the title of the herein applicant [petitioner] over the parcel of land covered
by plan PSU-129514;
 2. Upon updating of plotting on our Municipal Index Sheet, thru its tie line, it was found to
overlap with plan PSU-180598, Lot 5, applied in LRC Record No. N-24916, which was
referred to the Lands Management Services, El Bldg., Quezon City, for verification and/or
correction in our letter dated January 12, 1996 x x x;

3. In reply, the Regional Technical Director, thru the Chief, Surveys Division, in his letter
dated 20 June 1996, x x x, informed this Authority that after [re-verification] and research of
the plan, they found out that Lot 5, PSU-180598 applied in LRC Record No. N-24916 is a
portion of plan PSU-129514, applied in the instant case;

4. Our records further show that the petition for registration of title to real property pertaining
to Lot 5, PSU-180598 filed by the petitioner James Bracewell, Jr. under Land Reg. Case No.
N-4329, LRC Record No. N-24916 has been granted by the Honorable Court per his
decision dated May 3, 1989.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing is respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court for its information with
the recommendation that the applicant [herein petitioner] in the instant case be ordered to cause for
the amendment of plan PSU-129514, subject of registration, by segregating therefrom the portion of
Lot 5, PSU-180598 also decided in Land Reg. Case No. N-4328. The approved amended plan and
the corresponding certified technical descriptions shall forthwith be submitted to the Honorable Court
for its approval to enable us to comply with the decision of the Court dated May 3, 1989 in the instant
case.  (Emphases supplied)
17

The Las Piñas City-RTC Ruling

Finding that petitioner obtained Decree No. N-217036 and OCT No. 0-78 in bad faith, the Las Piñas
City-RTC rendered a Decision  on July 31, 2003 in favor of Bracewell, who had died during the
18

pendency of the case and was substituted by Eulalia Bracewell and his heirs (respondents).
Accordingly, it directed the LRA to set aside Decree No. N-217036 and OCT No. 0-78, and ordered
petitioner (a) to cause the amendment of Plan PSU-129514 and to segregate therefrom the subject
lot, and (b) to pay respondents the sum of ₱100,000.00 as attorney's fees, as well as the cost of
suit.
19

The Las Piñas City-RTC faulted petitioner for deliberately preventing respondents from participating
and objecting to his application for registration when the documentary evidence showed that, as
early as 1962, Bracewell had been paying taxes for the subject lot; and that he (Bracewell) was
recognized as the owner thereof in the records of the Bureau of Lands way back in 1965, as well as
in the City Assessor's Office. 20

Aggrieved, petitioner elevated his case on appeal  before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
21

81075, arguing mainly that the Las Piñas City-RTC had no jurisdiction over a petition for review of a
decree of registration under Section 32 of PD 1529, which should be filed in the same branch of the
court that rendered the decision and ordered the issuance of the decree.  He likewise raised (a) the
22

failure of Bracewell to submit to conciliation proceedings,  as well as (b) the commission of forum
23

shopping, considering that the decision granting Bracewell’s application for registration over Lots 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5 of Plan PSU-180598 was still pending resolution before the Court at the time he filed
Civil Case No. LP 98-0025. 24

The CA Ruling

In a Decision  dated May 23, 2007, the appellate court affirmed the assailed judgment of the RTC,
25

finding that respondents were able to substantiate their claim of actual fraud in the procurement of
Decree No. N-217036, which is the only ground that may be invoked in a petition for review of a
decree of registration under Section 32 of PD 1529. It held that, since the petition for review was
filed within one (1) year from the issuance of the questioned decree, and considering that the subject
lot is located in Las Piñas City, the RTC of said city had jurisdiction over the case.  It further
26

declared that: (a) there was no need to submit the case a quo for conciliation proceedings because
the LRA, which is an instrumentality of the government, had been impleaded; (b) no forum shopping
was committed because the petition for review of the decree of registration before the Las Piñas
City-RTC and the application for land registration then pending before the Court involved different
parties and issues; and (c) the award of attorney’s fees was well within the sound discretion of the
RTC. 27

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration  having been denied,  he now comes before the Court via the
28 29

instant petition for review, challenging primarily the jurisdiction of the Las Piñas City-RTC which set
aside and nullified the judgment rendered by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134 that had not yet
become final and was still within its exclusive control and discretion because the one (1) year period
within which the decree of registration issued by the LRA could be reviewed has not yet elapsed. 30
 The Issue Before the Court

The core issue raised for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the Las Piñas City-RTC has
jurisdiction over the petition for review of Decree No. N-217036, which was issued as a result of the
judgment rendered by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition must fail.

Under Act No. 496  (Act 496), or the "Land Registration Act," as amended,  – which was the law in
31 32

force at the time of the commencement by both parties of their respective registration proceedings –
jurisdiction over all applications for registration of title was conferred upon the Courts of First
Instance (CFIs, now RTCs) of the respective provinces in which the land sought to be registered is
situated.33

The land registration laws were updated and codified under PD 1529, which took effect on January
23, 1979,  and under Section 17  thereof, jurisdiction over an application for land registration is still
34 35

vested on the CFI (now, RTC) of the province or city where the land is situated. 36

Worth noting is the explanation proffered by respondents in their comment to the instant petition that
when petitioner filed his land registration case in December 1976, jurisdiction over applications for
registration of property situated in Las Piñas City was vested in the RTC of Makati City in view of the
fact that there were no RTC branches yet in the Las Piñas City at that time.  Bracewell’s own
37

application over Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Plan PSU-180598, all situated in Las Piñas City, was thus
granted by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 58. 38

Subsequently, Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129,  otherwise known as "The Judiciary
39

Reorganization Act of 1980," was enacted and took effect on August 14, 1981,  authorizing the 40

creation of RTCs in different judicial regions, including the RTC of Las Piñas City as part of the
National Capital Judicial Region.  As pointed out by the court a quo in its Decision dated July 31,
41

2003, the RTC of Las Piñas City was established "in or about 1994."  Understandably, in February
42

1998, Bracewell sought the review of Decree No. N-217036 before the Las Piñas City-RTC,
considering that the lot subject of this case is situated in Las Piñas City.

Petitioner maintains that the petition for review should have been filed with the RTC of Makati City,
Branch 134, which rendered the assailed decision and ordered the issuance of Decree No. N-
217036, citing the 1964 case of Amando Joson, et al. v. Busuego  (Joson) among others. In said
43

case, Spouses Amando Joson and Victoria Balmeo (Sps. Joson) filed a petition to set aside the
decree of registration issued in favor of Teodora Busuego (Busuego) on the ground that the latter
misrepresented herself to be the sole owner of the lot when in truth, the Sps. Joson were owners of
one-half thereof, having purchased the same from Busuego’s mother.  The court a quo therein
44

dismissed the petition for the reason that since its jurisdiction as a cadastral court was special and
limited, it had no authority to pass upon the issues raised. Disagreeing, the Court held that, as long
as the final decree has not been issued and the period of one (1) year within which it may be
reviewed has not elapsed, the decision remains under the control and sound discretion of the court
rendering the decree, which court after hearing, may even set aside said decision or decree and
adjudicate the land to another. 45

To be clear, the only issue in Joson was which court should take cognizance of the nullification of
the decree, i.e., the cadastral court that had issued the decree, or the competent CFI in the exercise
of its general jurisdiction.  It should be pointed out, however, that with the passage of PD 1529, the
46

distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction conferred
upon it as a cadastral court was eliminated. RTCs now have the power to hear and determine all
questions, even contentious and substantial ones, arising from applications for original registration of
titles to lands and petitions filed after such registration.  Accordingly, and considering further that the
47

matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited
jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of
jurisdiction,  petitioner cannot now rely on the Joson pronouncement to advance its theory.
48

Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the review of a decree of registration falls within the jurisdiction
of and, hence, should be filed in the "proper Court of First Instance," viz.:

Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value.  The decree of
1âwphi1

registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any
person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments,
subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof,
deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title
obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and
review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of
such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an
innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be
prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in
this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for
value.

Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title
issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any
case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other persons
responsible for the fraud. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Since the LRA’s issuance of a decree of registration only proceeds from the land registration court’s
directive, a petition taken under Section 32 of PD 1529 is effectively a review of the land registration
court’s ruling. As such, case law instructs that for "as long as a final decree has not been entered by
the [LRA] and the period of one (1) year has not elapsed from the date of entry of such 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." 49

While it is indeed undisputed that it was the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134 which rendered the
decision directing the LRA to issue Decree No. N-217036, and should, applying the general rule as
above-stated, be the same court before which a petition for the review of Decree No. N-217036 is
filed, the Court must consider the circumstantial milieu in this case that, in the interest of orderly
procedure, warrants the filing of the said petition before the Las Piñas City-RTC.

Particularly, the Court refers to the fact that the application for original registration in this case was
only filed before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134 because, during that time, i.e., December 1976,
Las Piñas City had no RTC. Barring this situation, the aforesaid application should not have been
filed before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134 pursuant to the rules on venue prevailing at that
time. Under Section 2, Rule 4 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court, which took effect on January 1,
1964, the proper venue for real actions, such as an application for original registration, lies with the
CFI of the province where the property is situated, viz.:

Sec. 2. Venue in Courts of First Instance.— (a) Real actions. — Actions affecting title to, or for
recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real
property, shall be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies.

As the land subject of this case is undeniably situated in Las Piñas City, the application for its
original registration should have been filed before the Las Piñas City-RTC were it not for the fact that
the said court had yet to be created at the time the application was filed. Be that as it may, and
considering further that the complication at hand is actually one of venue and not of jurisdiction
(given that RTCs do retain jurisdiction over review of registration decree cases pursuant to Section
32 of PD 1529), the Court, cognizant of the peculiarity of the situation, holds that the Las Piñas City-
RTC has the authority over the petition for the review of Decree No. N-217036 filed in this case.
Indeed, the filing of the petition for review before the Las Piñas City-RTC was only but a rectificatory
implementation of the rules of procedure then-existing, which was temporarily set back only because
of past exigencies. In light of the circumstances now prevailing, the Court perceives no compelling
reason to deviate from applying the rightful procedure. After all, venue is only a matter of
procedure  and, hence, should succumb to the greater interests of the orderly administration of
50

justice.
51

Anent the other ancillary issues raised by petitioner on forum shopping, submission to conciliation
proceedings, and award of attorney's fees, suffice it to say that the same have been adequately
discussed by the appellate court and, hence, need no further elucidation.

Finally, on the matter of petitioner's objections against the trial judge's "unusual interest" in the case,
the Court concurs with the CA in saying that such tirades are not helpful to his cause. Besides, as
pointed out in the Decision dated July 31, 2003 of the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 275, petitioner
already had his chance to disqualify the trial judge from further hearing the case, but the appellate
court dismissed his petition in CA G.R. SP No. 74187 for lack of merit. 52

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 23, 2007 and the Resolution dated
August 14, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 81075 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO