Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82936:56822&catid=1582&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:26:58+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 179155, April 02, 2014 - NICOMEDES J. LOZADA, Petitioner, v. EULALIA BRACEWELL, EDDIE BRACEWELL, ESTELLITA BRACEWELL, JAMES BRACEWELL, JOHN BRACEWELL, EDWIN BRACEWELL, ERIC BRACEWELL, AND HEIRS OF GEORGE BRACEWELL, Respondents.
NICOMEDES J. LOZADA, Petitioner, v. EULALIA BRACEWELL, EDDIE BRACEWELL, ESTELLITA BRACEWELL, JAMES BRACEWELL, JOHN BRACEWELL, EDWIN BRACEWELL, ERIC BRACEWELL, AND HEIRS OF GEORGE BRACEWELL, Respondents.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated May 23, 2007 and the Resolution3 dated August 14, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. CV No. 81075, which affirmed the Decision4 dated July 31, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, 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.
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.
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.
Subsequently, Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129,39 otherwise known as “The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,” was enacted and took effect on August 14, 1981,40 authorizing the creation of RTCs in different judicial regions, including the RTC of Las Piñas City as part of the National Capital Judicial Region.41 As pointed out by the court a quo in its Decision dated July 31, 2003, the RTC of Las Piñas City was established “in or about 1994.”42 Understandably, in February 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.
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.46It should be pointed out, however, that with the passage of PD 1529, the 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.47 Accordingly, and considering further that the 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,48 petitioner cannot now rely on the Joson pronouncement to advance its theory.
Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. The decree of 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2 Id. at 179–191. Penned by Associate Justice Aurora Santiago–Lagman, with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now, member of the Court) and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring.
4 Id. at 102–107. Penned by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda.
21 Id. at 109–152. Appellant’s Brief dated August 15, 2004.
27 Id. at 186–187 and 190.
28 Dated June 7, 2007; id. at 192–201.
33 See City of Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 102, 120.
34 Esconde v. Hon. Barlongay, 236 Phil. 644, 651 (1987).
35 Section 17. What and where to file. The application for land registration shall be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the land is situated. The applicant shall file together with the application all original muniments of titles or copies thereof and a survey plan of the land approved by the Bureau of Lands.
36 See City of Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority, supra note 33, at120–121.
40Tomawis v. Balindong, G.R. No. 182434, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 354, 364.
41 BP 129, Chater II, Sec. 13.
43 120 Phil 1473 (1964).
47 See Philippine National Bank v. International Corporate Bank, 276 Phil. 551, 558–559 (1991).
48 See Manalo v. Hon. Mariano, 161 Phil. 108, 120 (1976), citations omitted. See also Romero v. CA, G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 218, 227, citing Coca v. Borromeo, 171 Phil. 246 (1978).
49Atty. Gomez v. CA, 250 Phil. 504, 510 (1988).
50 See Heirs of Lopez v. De Castro, 381 Phil. 591, 610 (2000).
51 See Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Yap, 211 Phil. 641, 643 (1983).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.