Adez Realty v.

CA case digest

Facts: On December 1990, Adez Realty sought to annul the order of Morong, Rizal, to allow the
reconstitution of a Transfer Certificate Title that was dated November 1984. This petition also
sought to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals with the case CA-G.R. CV No. 21392.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because this case raised the same issues that were in
the earlier case CA-G.R. CV No. 21392. There was no motion for consideration or appeal that was filed
with the Supreme Court, and so the decision of that case had reached finality of judgement and have
been entered into the judgement book.

Petitioner reasons that it did not receive the registered mail that contained the notice to inform
the petitioners of when the judicial reconstitution of title was sought.

Issue:

a.) Whether or not not receiving a notice is a jurisdictional defect.

b.) Whether or not this cause of action shall prosper.

Decision: Albeit petitioner’s complaint that there was no notice that was sent by registered mail to
the petitioner when the judicial reconstitution of title was sought, the court holds that still, there
was no jurisdictional defect. Land registration proceedings are proceedings in rem, not in personam,
and therefore it is not necessary to give personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land sought to
be registered, in order to vest the courts with power or authority over the res.

The notice of hearing was placed in the publication of the Official Gazette, allowing the court
jurisdiction to hear and decide it. Which in its very purpose shows the world that a petition was filed for
anyone to oppose it and is given thirty days before its set date by court for hearing said petition.

When there is finality in judgement, the Court can no longer amend, modify or set said
decision aside. This is especially so when petitioner failed to file an appeal during the reglementary
period. The same cause of action shall not be twice litigated.

Also, there was a phrase that was quoted in the Petition for Review which was not found in
the decision by Associate Justice Herrera for the Court of Appeals. This constitutes an attempt to
mislead the Court.