The petitioners applied to register a parcel of land including two small parcels. The court initially granted the application but later modified its decree to exclude the two parcels at the request of the appellee, who claimed ownership. The petitioners appealed. The court had to determine whether reopening the case and modifying the decree was proper given that the petitioners' parents had purchased the entire parcel, including the two parcels, and the appellee's father had obtained a land grant for the same parcels after the parents' death while the petitioners were minors.
The petitioners applied to register a parcel of land including two small parcels. The court initially granted the application but later modified its decree to exclude the two parcels at the request of the appellee, who claimed ownership. The petitioners appealed. The court had to determine whether reopening the case and modifying the decree was proper given that the petitioners' parents had purchased the entire parcel, including the two parcels, and the appellee's father had obtained a land grant for the same parcels after the parents' death while the petitioners were minors.
The petitioners applied to register a parcel of land including two small parcels. The court initially granted the application but later modified its decree to exclude the two parcels at the request of the appellee, who claimed ownership. The petitioners appealed. The court had to determine whether reopening the case and modifying the decree was proper given that the petitioners' parents had purchased the entire parcel, including the two parcels, and the appellee's father had obtained a land grant for the same parcels after the parents' death while the petitioners were minors.
MANUELA GREY ALBA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. ANACLETO R. E LA CRU!, objector-appellee. Ramon Salinas, for appellants. Aniceto G. Reyes, for appellee. TRENT, J.: These petitioners, Manuela, Jose, Juan, and Francisco, surnamed Grey y Alba, are the only heirs of Doa !e"unda Alba #lemente and $onorato Grey, deceased. %emedios Grey y Alba, a sister of the petitioners, &as married on the '(st day of March, ()*+, to ,icente %eyes and died on the (+th of July, ()*-, &ithout leavin" any heirs e.cept her husband. The four petitioners, as coo&ners, sou"ht to have re"istered the follo&in"-described property/ A parcel of land situated in the barrio of Talampas, municipality of 0aliua", 1rovince of 0ulacan, upon &hich are situated three houses and one camarin of li"ht material, havin" a superficial area of -' hectares, -( ares, and '' centares2 bounded on the north by the hi"h&ay 3calzada4 of Talampas and the lands of %ita %ui5 Mateo2 on the east by the lands of the said %ita %ui5 Mateo, $ermene"ildo 1rado, 1olicarpo de Jesus, and a stream called !apan"0uslut2 on the south by the same stream and the lands of the capellania2 and on the &est by the stream called !apan"0uslut, and the lands of ,icente de la #ru5, Jose #amacho and Domin"o %ui5 Mateo. This parcel of a"ricultural land is used for the raisin" of rice and su"ar cane and is assessed at 6(,*** 7nited !tates currency. The petition, &hich &as filed on the (8th of December, ()*9, &as accompanied by a plan and technical description of the above- described parcel of land. A"ter #e$r%&' t#e proo"( pre(e&te), t#e *o+rt e&tere), o& t#e 12t# o" ,ebr+$r-, 190., $ )e*ree %& $**or)$&*e /%t# t#e pro0%(%o&( o" p$r$'r$p# 6 o" (e*t%o& 54 o" A*t No. 926, )%re*t%&' t#$t t#e 1$&) )e(*r%be) %& t#e pet%t%o&er be re'%(tere) %& t#e &$me( o" t#e "o+r pet%t%o&er(, $( *oo/&er(, (+b2e*t to t#e +(+"r+*t+$r- r%'#t o" 3%*e&te Re-e(, /%)o/er o" Reme)%o( Gre-. :n the (9th of June, ()*8, Anacleto%atilla de la #ru5 filed a motion in the #ourt of ;and %e"istration as<in" for a revision of the case, includin" the decision, upon the "round that he is the absolute o&ner of the t&o parcels of land &hich are described in said motion, and &hich, accordin" to his alle"ations, are included in the lands decreed to the petitioners. $e alle"ed that the decree of February (', ()*8, &as obtained maliciously and fraudulently by the petitioners, thereby deprivin" him of said t&o parcels of land. $e further alle"ed that he &as the absolute o&ner of the t&o parcels of land, havin" inherited them from his father, 0aldomero %. de la #ru5, &ho had a state "rant for the same. $e therefore as<ed, under the provisions of section +8 of the ;and %e"istration Act 3=o. >)94, a revision of the case, and that the said decree be modified so as to e.clude the t&o parcels of land described in said motion. The ;and #ourt upon this motion reopened the case, and after hearin" the additional evidence presented by both parties, rendered, on the '+rd of =ovember, ()*8, its decision modifyin" the former decree by e.cludin" from the same the t&o parcels of land claimed by Anacleto%atilla de la #ru5. ,rom t#%( )e*%(%o& $&) 2+)'me&t t#e pet%t%o&er( $ppe$1e) $&) &o/ %&(%(t, "%r(t, t#$t t#e tr%$1 *o+rt erre) %& reope&%&' t#e *$(e $&) mo)%"-%&' %t( )e*ree )$te) t#e 12t# o" ,ebr+$r-, 190., "or t#e re$(o& t#$t ($%) )e*ree /$( &ot obt$%&e) b- me$&( o" "r$+)4 $&), (e*o&), t#$t t#e *o+rt erre) %& #o1)%&' t#$t t#e t/o p$r*e1( o" 1$&) )e(*r%be) %& t#e $ppe11ee5( mot%o& $re &ot t#e%r propert-. ?t &as a"reed by counsel that the t&o small parcels no& in dispute forma part of the land described in the petition and &ere included in the decree of February (', ()*8, and that the petitioners are the o&ners of the remainder of the land described in the said decree. The petitioners inherited this land from their parents, &ho ac@uired the same, includin" the t&o small parcels in @uestion, by purchase, as is evidenced by a public document dated the '9th of =ovember, 1.64, duly e.ecuted before Francisco ?riarte, alcalde mayor and jud"e of the #ourt of First ?nstance of the 1rovince of 0ulacan. B$1)omero R. )e 1$ Cr+6, "$t#er o" t#e $ppe11ee, obt$%&e) %& m$r*#, 1.95, $ (t$te 'r$&t "or (e0er$1 p$r*e1( o" 1$&), %&*1+)%&' t#e t/o p$r*e1( %& 7+e(t%o&. T#%( 'r$&t /$( )+1- %&(*r%be) %& t#e o1) re'%(ter o" propert- %& B+1$*$& o& t#e 6t# o" Apr%1 o" t#e ($me -e$r. ?t is admitted that at the time the appellants presented their petition in this case the appellee &as occupyin" the t&o parcels of land no& in @uestion. ?t is also admitted that the name of the appellee does not appear in the said petition as an occupant of the said t&o parcels. The petitioners insist that the appellee &as occupyin" these parcels as their tenant and for this reason they did not include his name in their petition, as an occupant, &hile the appellee contends that he &as occupyin" the said parcels as the absolute o&ner under the estate "rant by inheritance. The court belo& held that the failure on the part of the petitioners to include the name of the appellee in their petition, as an occupant of these t&o parcels of land, &as a violation of section '( of Act =o. >)9, and that this constituted fraud &ithin the meanin" of section +8 of said ;and %e"istration Act. The trial court further held that the "rant from the estate should prevail over the public document of purchase of (89>. T#e mot#er o" t#e pet%t%o&er( )%e) o& No0ember 15, 1..14 t#e%r "$t#er )%e) pr%or to t#$t t%me. M$&+e1$, t#e o1)e(t o" t#e pet%t%o&er(, /$( $bo+t (%8 -e$r( o" $'e /#e& t#e%r mot#er )%e). So t#e(e *#%1)re& /ere m%&or( /#e& t#e "$t#er o" t#e $ppe11ee obt$%&e) t#e e(t$te 'r$&t. :n the (+th of June, (88', Jose Grey, uncle and representative of the petitioners, &ho &ere then minors, rented the land o&ned by the petitionersA deceased parents to one ?rineo Jose for a period of three years. :n the '+d of March, (8)-, the said 9o(e Gre-, $( t#e repre(e&t$t%0e o" t#e pet%t%o&er(,re&te) t#e ($me 1$&) "or $ per%o) o" (%8 -e$r( to B$1)omero R. )e 1$ Cr+6, "$t#er o" t#e $ppe11ee. This rental contract &as duly e.ecuted in &ritin". This land &as cultivated durin" these si. years by 0aldomero %. de la #ru5 and his children, one of &hom is the appellee. :n the (>th of December, ()*-, Jose Grey, for himself and the other petitioners, rented the same land to Bstanislao %. de la #ru5 for a period of t&o years. Bstanislao de la #ru5 on enterin" into this rental contract &ith Jose Grey did so for himself and his brothers, one of &hom is the appellee. Chile the appellee admits that his father and brother entered into these rental contracts and did, in fact, cultivate the petitionersA land, nevertheless he insists that the t&o small parcels in @uestion &ere not included in these contracts. ?n the rental contract bet&een the uncle of the petitioners and he father of the appellee the land is not described. ?n the rental contract bet&een Jose Grey, one of the petitioners, and Bstanislao %. de la #ru5, brother of the appellee, the t&o small parcels of land in @uestion are included, accordin" to the description "iven therein. This &as found to be true by the court belo&, but the said court held that as this contract &as made by Bstanislao %. de la #ru5 it &as not bindin" upon Anacleto %. de la #ru5, the appellee. The t&o small parcels of land in @uestion &ere purchased by the parents of the petitioners in (89>, as is evidenced by the public document of purchase and sale of that year. The same t&o parcels of land are included in the state "rant issued in favor of 0aldomero%atilla de la #ru5 in (8)-. T#%( 'r$&t /$( obt$%&e) $"ter t#e )e$t# o" t#e pet%t%o&er(5 p$re&t( $&) /#%1e t#e- /ere m%&or(. So %t %( *1e$r t#$t t#e pet%t%o&er( #o&e(t1- be1%e0e) t#$t t#e $ppe11ee /$( o**+p-%&' t#e ($%) p$r*e1( $( t#e%r 1e((ee $t t#e t%me t#e- pre(e&te) t#e%r $pp1%*$t%o& "or re'%(tr$t%o&. T#e- )%) &ot $*t %& b$) "$%t#, &or /%t# $&- "r$+)+1e&t %&te&t, /#e& t#e- om%tte) to %&*1+)e %& t#e%r $pp1%*$t%o& t#e &$me o" t#e $ppe11ee $( o&e o" t#e o**+p$&t( o" t#e 1$&). T#e- be1%e0e) t#$t %t /$( &ot &e*e(($r- &or re7+%re) t#$t t#e- %&*1+)e %& t#e%r $pp1%*$t%o& t#e &$me( o" t#e%r te&$&t(. 7nder these circumstances, did the court belo& commit an error in reopenin" this case in June, ()*8, after its decree had been entered in February of the same yearD
The application for the re"istration is to be in /r%t%&', (%'&e) and
(/or& to b- t#e $pp1%*$&t, or by some person duly authori5ed in his behalf. ?t is to contain an $**+r$te )e(*r%pt%o& o" t#e 1$&). ?t shall contain the &$me %& "+11 $&) t#e $))re(( o" t#e $pp1%*$&t, and also the &$me( $&) $))re((e( of all occupantsof land and of all adjoinin" o&ners, if <no&n2 and, if not <no&n, it shall state &hat search has been made to find them. ?n the form of notice "iven by statute, &hich shall be s&orn to, the applicant is re@uired to state and set forth clearly $11 mort'$'e( or e&*+mbr$&*e( affectin" said land, if any, the r%'#t( $&) %&tere(t( , le"al or e@uitable, %& t#e po((e((%o&, rem$%&)er, re0er(%o&, or e8pe*t$&*- o" $11 per(o&(, /%t# t#e%r &$me( %& "+11, to'et#er /%t# t#e%r p1$*e o" re(%)e&*e $&) po(t o""%*e $))re((e( . 7pon receipt of the application the cler< shall cause &ot%*e of the fillin" to be published t&ice in the :fficial Ga5ette. This published notice shall be directed to all persons appearin" to have an interest in the land sou"ht to be re"istered and to the adjoinin" o&ners, and also "to all whom it may concern." ?n addition to the notice in the :fficial Ga5ette the ;and #ourt shall, &ithin seven days after said publication, cause a copy of the notice, in !panish, to be m$%1e) by the cler< to every person named in the application &hose address is <no&n2 to cause a duly attested copy of the notice, in !panish, to be po(te) in a conspicuous place on every parcel of land included in the application, and in a conspicuous place on the chief municipal buildin" of the to&n in &hich the land is situated. The court may also cause other or further notice of the application to be "iven in such manner and to such persons as it may deem proper. The certificate of the cler< that he has served the notice as directed by the court by publication or mailin" shall be conclusive proof of such service. Cithin the time allo&ed in the notices, if no person appears and ans&ers, the court may at once, upon motion of the applicant, no reason to the contrary appearin", order a "eneral default. 0y the description in the published notice Eto all &hom it may concern,E and by e.press provisions of la& Eall the &ord are made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the default an order.E ?f the court, after hearin", finds that the applicant has title, as stated in his application, a decree or re"istration shall be entered. E0er- )e*ree o" re'%(tr$t%o&(#$11 b%&) t#e 1$&) $&) 7+%et t%t1e t#ereto, (+b2e*t o&1- to t#e e8*ept%o&( (t$te) %& t#e "o11o/%&' (e*t%o&. :t (#$11 be *o&*1+(%0e +po& $&) $'$%&(t all persons , %&*1+)%&' t#e :&(+1$r Go0er&me&t, $&) $11 t#e br$&*#e( t#ereo", /#et#er me&t%o&e) b- &$me %& t#e $pp1%*$t%o&, &ot%*e, or *%t$t%o&, or %&*1+)e) %& t#e 'e&er$1 )e(*r%pt%o& "to all whom it may concern." S+*# )e*ree (#$11 &ot be ope&e)b- re$(o& o" t#e $b(e&*e, %&"$&*-, or ot#er )%($b%1%t- o" $&- per(o& $""e*te) t#ereb-, &or b- $&- pro*ee)%&'( %& $&- *o+rt "or re0er(%&' 2+)'me&t( or )e*ree(4 (+b2e*t, #o/e0er, to t#e r%'#t o" $&- per(o& )epr%0e) o" 1$&) or o" $&- e(t$te or %&tere(t t#ere%& b- )e*ree o" re'%(tr$t%o& obtained by fraud to "%1e %& t#e Co+rt o" L$&) Re'%(tr$t%o& $ pet%t%o& "or re0%e/ /%t#%& o&e -e$r. . . . ;Se*. <. o" A*t No. 496.= The appellee is not included in any of the e.ceptions named in section +8 referred to above. ?t &ill be seen that the applicant is re@uired to mention not only the outstandin" interest &hich he admits but also all claims of interest, thou"h denied by him. 0y e.press provision of la& the &orld are made parties defendant by the description in the notice Eto all &hom it may concern.E Althou"h the appellee, occupyin" the t&o small parcels of land in @uestion under the circumstances as &e have set forth, &as not served &ith notice, he &as made a party defendant by publication2 and the enterin" of a decree on the ('th of February, ()*8, must be held to be conclusive a"ainst all persons, includin" the appellee, &hether his 3appelleeAs4 name is mentioned in the application, notice, or citation. The said decree of February (', ()*8, should not have been opened on account of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, and could have been opened only on the "round that the said decree had been obtained by fraud. That decree &as not obtained by fraud on the part of the applicants, inasmuch as they honestly believed that the appellee &as occupyin" these t&o small parcels of land as their tenant. :ne of the petitioner &ent upon the premises &ith the surveyor &hen the ori"inal plan &as made. 1roof of constructive fraud is not sufficient to authori5e the #ourt of ;and %e"istration to reopen a case and modify its decree. !pecific, intentional acts to deceive and deprive anther of his ri"ht, or in some manner injure him, must be alle"ed and proved2 that is, there must be actual or positive fraud as distin"uished from constructive fraud. The @uestion as to the meanin" of the &ord EfraudE in the Australian statutes has been fre@uently raised. T&o distinctions have been noted by the Australian courts2 the first is the distinction bet&een the meanin" of the &ord EfraudE in the sections relatin" to the conclusive effect of certificates of title, and its meanin" in the sections relatin" to the protection of bona fide purchasers from re"istered proprietors. The second is the distinction bet&een Ele"al,E Ee@uitable,E or EconstructiveE fraud, and EactualE or EmoralE fraud. ?n none of the "roups of the sections of the Australian statutes relatin" to the conclusive effect of certificates of title, and in &hich fraud is referred to, is there any e.press indication of the meanin" of Efraud,E &ith the sole e.ception of that of the !outh Australian "roup. 3$o"" on Australian Torrens !ystem, p. 8+>.4 Cith re"ard to decisions on the sections relatin" to the conclusive effect of certificates of title, it has been held in some cases that the EfraudE there mentioned means actual or moral fraud, not merely constructive or le"al fraud. ?n other cases EfraudE has been said to include constructive, le"al, and every <ind of fraud. ?n other cases, a"ainst, <no&led"e of other personsA ri"ht, and the deliberate ac@uisition of re"istered title in the face of such <no&led"e, has been held to be EfraudE &hich rendered voidable the certificates of title so obtained2 and voluntary i"norance is, for this purpose, the same as <no&led"e. 0ut in none of these three classes of cases &as there absent the element of intention to deprive another of just ri"hts, &hich constitutes the essential characteristics of actual F as distin"uished from le"al-fraud. 3Id., p. 8+-, and cases cited in notes =os. 8-, 89, 8G, 88, and 8) at bottom of pa"es 8+- and 8+9.4 0y EfraudE is meant actual fraud-dishonesty of some sort. 3Jud"ment of 1rivy #ouncil in Assets #o. vs. Mere %oihi, and Assets #o. vs. 1anapaCaihopi, decided in March, ()*-, cited by $o"" in his !upplementary Addendum to his &or< on Australian Torrens !ystem, supra.4 The same meanin" should be "iven to the &ord EfraudE used in section +8 of our statutes 3Act =o. >)94. The @uestion as to &hether any particular transaction sho&s fraud, &ithin the meanin" of the &ord as used in our statutes, &ill in each case be a @uestion of fact. Ce &ill not attempt to say &hat acts &ould constitutes this <ind of fraud in other cases. This must be determined from the fact an circumstances in each particular case. The only @uestion &e are called upon to determine, and have determined, is &hether or not, under the facts and circumstances in this case, the petitioners did obtain the decree of February (', ()*8, by means of fraud. ?t mi"ht be ur"ed that the appellee has been deprived of his property &ithout due process of la&, in violation of section - of the Act of #on"ress of July (, ()*', <no&n as the 1hilippine 0ill,E &hich provides Ethat no la& shall be enacted in the said ?slands &hich shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property &ithout due process of la&.E The ;and %e"istration Act re@uires that all occupants be named in the petition and "iven notice by re"istered mail. This did not do the appellee any "ood, as he &as not notified2 but he &as made a party defendant, as &e have said, by means of the publication Eto all &hom it may concern.E ?f this section of the Act is to be upheld this must be declared to be due process of la&. Be"ore e8$m%&%&' t#e 0$1%)%t- o" t#%( p$rt o" t#e A*t %t m%'#t be /e11 to &ote t#e #%(tor- $&) p+rpo(e o" /#$t %( >&o/& $( t#e ?Torre&( L$&) Re'%(tr$t%o& S-(tem.? T#%( (-(tem /$( %&tro)+*e) %& So+t# A+(tr$1%$ b- S%r Robert Torre&( %& 1.5@ $&) /$( t#ere /or>e) o+t %& %t( pr$*t%*$b1e "orm. T#e m$%& pr%&*%p1e o" re'%(tr$t%o& %( to m$>e re'%(tere) t%t1e( %&)e"e$(%b1e. A( /e #$0e ($%), +po& t#e pre(e&t$t%o& %& t#e Co+rt o" L$&) Re'%(tr$t%o& o" $& $pp1%*$t%o& "or t#e re'%(tr$t%o& o" t#e t%t1e to 1$&)(, +&)er t#%( (-(tem, t#e t#eor- o" t#e 1$/ %( t#$t $11 o**+p$&t(, $)2o%&%&' o/&er(, $)0er(e *1$%m$&t(, $&) ot#er %&tere(te) per(o&( $re &ot%"%e) o" t#e pro*ee)%&'(, $&) #$0e #$0e $ r%'#t to $ppe$r %& oppo(%t%o& to (+*# $pp1%*$t%o&. :& ot#er /or)(, t#e pro*ee)%&' %( $'$%&(t t#e /#o1e /or). T#%( (-(tem /$( e0%)e&t1- *o&(%)ere) b- t#e Le'%(1$t+re to be $ p+b1%* pro2e*t /#e& %t p$((e) A*t No. 496. T#e %&tere(t o" t#e *omm+&%t- $t 1$r'e /$( *o&(%)ere) to be pre"erre) to t#$t o" pr%0$te %&)%0%)+$1(. At the close of this nineteenth century, all civili5ed nations are comin" to re"istration of title to land, because immovable property is becomin" more and more a matter of commercial dealin", and there can be no trade &ithout security. 3DumasAs ;ectures, p. '+.4 The re"istered proprietor &ill no lon"er have reasons to fear that he may evicted because his vendor had, un<no&n to him, already sold the and to a third person. . . The re"istered proprietor may feel himself protected a"ainst any defect in his vendorAs title. 3Id., p. '(.4 T#e "o11o/%&' (+mm$r- o" be&e"%t(o" t#e (-(tem o" re'%(tr$t%o& o" t%t1e(, m$)e b- S%r Robert Torre&(, #$( bee& "+11- 2+(t%"%e) %& %t( +(eA ,%r(t. :t #$( (+b(t%t+te) (e*+r%t- "or %&(e*+r%t-. Se*o&). :t #$( re)+*e) t#e *o(t( o" *o&0e-$&*e( "rom po+&)( to (#%11%&'(, $&) t#e t%me o**+p%e) "rom mo&t#( to )$-(. T#%r). :t #$( e8*#$&'e) bre0%t- $&) *1e$r&e(( "or ob(*+r%t- $&) 0erb%$'e. ,o+rt#. :t #$( (o (%mp1%"%e) or)%&$r- )e$1%&'( t#$t #e /#o #$( m$(tere) t#e ?t#ree R5(? *$& tr$&($*t #%( o/& *o&0e-$&*%&'. ,%"t#. :t $""or)( prote*t%o& $'$%&(t "r$+). S%8t#. :t #$( re(tore) to t#e%r 2+(t 0$1+e m$&- e(t$te( #e1) +&)er 'oo) #o1)%&' t%t1e(, b+t )epre*%$te) %& *o&(e7+e&*e o" (ome b1+r or te*#&%*$1 )e"e*t, $&) #$( b$rre) t#e reo**+rre&*e o" $&- (%m%1$r "$+1t(. ;S#e1)o& o& L$&) Re'%(tr$t%o&, pp. @5, @6.= The boldest effort to "rapple &ith the problem of simplification of title to land &as made by Mr. 3after&ards !ir %obert4 Torrens, a layman, in !outh Australia in (8-G. . . . :& t#e Torre&( (-(tem title by registration t$>e( t#e p1$*e o" "title by deeds" o" t#e (-(tem +&)er t#e ?'e&er$1? 1$/. A ($1e o" 1$&), "or e8$mp1e, %( e""e*te) b- $ re'%(tere) tr$&("er, +po& /#%*# $ *ert%"%*$te o" t%t1e %( %((+e). T#e *ert%"%*$te %( '+$r$&tee) b- (t$t+te, $&), /%t# *ert$%& e8*ept%o&(, *o&(t%t+te( %&)e"e$(%b1e t%t1e to t#e 1$&) me&t%o&e) t#ere%&. U&)er t#e o1) (-(tem t#e ($me ($1e /o+1) be e""e*te) b- $ *o&0e-$&*e, )epe&)%&' "or %t( 0$1%)%t-, $p$rt "rom %&tr%&(%* "1$/(, o& t#e *orre*t&e(( o" $ 1o&' (er%e( o" pr%or )ee)(, /%11(, et*. . . . T#e ob2e*t o" t#e Torre&( (-(tem, t#em, %( to )o $/$- /%t# t#e )e1$-, +&*ert$%&t-, $&) e8pe&(e o" t#e o1) *o&0e-$&*%&' (-(tem . 3Duffy HBa"leson on The Transfer of ;and Act, (8)*, pp. ', +, -, G.4 B- ?Torre&(? (-(tem 'e&er$11- $re me$&t t#o(e (-(tem( o" re'%(tr$t%o& o" tr$&($*t%o&( /%t# %&tere(t %& 1$&) /#o(e )e*1$re) ob2e*t . . . %(, +&)er 'o0er&me&t$1 $+t#or%t-, to e(t$b1%(# $&) *ert%"- to t#e o/&er(#%p o" $& $b(o1+te $&) %&)e"e$(%b1e t%t1e to re$1t-, $&) to (%mp1%"- %t( tr$&("er. ;Bo'' o& A+(tr$1%$& Torre&( (-(tem, supra, pp. 1, 2.= #ompensation for errors from assurance funds is provided in all countries in &hich the Torrens system has been enacted. #ases of error no doubt &ill al&ays occur. The percenta"e of errors, as compared &ith the number of re"istered dealin"s in Australia, is very small. ?n =e& !outh Cales there &ere, in (88), '*), 8)> re"istered dealin"s, the avera"e ris< of error bein" only ' I cents for each dealin". ?n Jueensland the ris< of error &as only ( I cents, the number of re"istered dealin"s bein" '++,+*). ?n Tasmania and in Cestern Australia not a cent &as paid for compensation for errors durin" the &hole time of operation, 3DumasAs ;ectures, supra, p. )9.4 This system has been adopted in various countries of the civili5ed &orld, includin" some of the !tates of the American 7nion, and practical e.perience has demonstrated that it has been successful as a public project. The validity of some of the provisions of the statutes adoptin" the Torrens system has been the subject of judicial decision in the courts of the 7nited !tates. 31eople vs. #hase, (9- ?ll., -'G2 !tate vs. Guilbert, -9 :hio !t., -G-2 1eople vs. !imon, (G9 ?ll., (9-2 Tyler vs. Jud"es, (G- Mass., G(.4 Act =o. >)9 of the 1hilippine #ommission, <no&n as the E;and %e"istration Act,E &as copied substantially from the Massachussetts la& of (8)8. The ?llinois and Massachusetts statutes &ere upheld by the supreme courts of those !tates. ?t is not enou"h to sho& a procedure to be unconstitutional to say that &e never heard of it before. 3Tyler vs. Jud"es, supra2 $urtadovs. #alifornia, ((* 7. !., -(9.4 ;oo<ed at either from the point of vie& of history or of the necessary re@uirements of justice, a proceedin" in rem dealin" &ith a tan"ible res may be instituted and carried to jud"ment &ithout personal service upon claimants &ithin the !tate or notice by name to those outside of it, and not encounter any provision of either constitution. Jurisdiction is secured by the po&er of the court over the res. As &e have said, such a proceedin" &ould be impossible, &ere this not so, for it hardly &ould do to ma<e a distinction bet&een the constitutional ri"hts of claimants &ho &ere <no&n and those &ho &ere not <no&n to the plaintiff, &hen the proceedin" is to bar all. 3Tyler vs. Jud"es, supra.4 This same doctrine is annunciated in 1ennoyervs. =eff 3)- 7. !., G(>42 The Mary 3) #ranch, ('942 Man<invs. #handler 3' 0roc<., ('-42 0ro&n vs. ;evee #ommission 3-* Miss., >9842 ' Freeman, Jud"ments, >th ed., secs. 9*9, 9((. :" t#e te*#&%*$1 ob2e*t o" t#e (+%t %( to e(t$b1%(# $ *1$%m $'$%&(t (ome p$rt%*+1$r per(o&, /%t# $ 2+)'me&t /#%*# 'e&er$11-, %& t#eor- $t 1e$(t, b%&)( #%( bo)-, or to b$r (ome %&)%0%)+$1 *1$%m or ob2e*t%o&, (o t#$t o&1- *ert$%& per(o&( $re e&t%t1e) to be #e$r) %& )e"e&(e, t#e $*t%o& %( in personam, $1t#o+'# %t m$- *o&*er& t#e r%'#t to or po((e((%o& o" $ t$&'%b1e t#%&'. :", o& t#e ot#er #$&), t#e ob2e*t %( to b$r %&)%""ere&t1- $11 /#o m%'#t be m%&)e) to m$>e $& ob2e*t%o& o" $&- (ort $'$%&(t t#e r%'#t (o+'#t to be e(t$b1%(#e), $&) %" $&-o&e %& t#e /or1) #$( $ r%'#t to be #e$r) o& t#e (tre&'#t o" $11e'%&' "$*t( /#%*#, %" tr+e, (#o/ $& %&*o&(%(te&t %&tere(t, t#e pro*ee)%&' %( in rem. ;T-1er vs. 9+)'e(, supra.= ?n the case of $amilton vs. 0ro&n 3(9( 7. !., '-94 a jud"ment of escheat &as held conclusive upon persons notified by advertisement to all persons interested. ?n this jurisdiction, by the provisions of the #ode of #ivil 1rocedure, Act =o. ()*, a decree allo&in" or disallo&in" a &ill binds everybody, althou"h the only notice of the proceedin"s "iven is by "eneral notice to all persons interested. The supreme court Massachusetts, in the case of Tyler vs. Jud"es 3supra4, did not rest its jud"ment as to the conclusive effect of the decree upon the "round that the !tate has absolute po&er to determine the persons to &hom a manAs property shall "o at his death, but upon the characteristics of a proceedin" in rem. !o &e conclude that the proceedin"s had in the case at bar, under all the facts and circumstances, especially the absolute lac< on the part of the petitioners of any dishonest intent to deprive the appellee of any ri"ht, or in any &ay injure him, constitute due process of la&. A( to /#et#er or &ot t#e $ppe11ee *$& (+**e("+11- m$%&t$%& $& $*t%o& +&)er t#e pro0%(%o&( o" (e*t%o&( 101 $&) 102 o" t#e L$&) Re'%(tr$t%o& A*t ;(e*(. 2<65, 2<66, Comp%1$t%o&= /e )o &ot )e*%)e. For these reasons &e are of the opinion, and so hold, that the jud"ment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby reversed and jud"ment entered in favor of the petitioners in conformity &ith the decree of the lo&er court of February (', ()*8, &ithout special rulin" as to costs. ?t is so ordered. Arellano, C.J., orres, Johnson and !oreland, JJ., concur.