represented by Tessie Sebastian,

GEORGE G. GUERRERO, BEATRIZ

TANTOCO, represented by Filomena
Cervantes, ATTY. MARCELA
CELESTINOGARCIA, FEDERICO
GARCIA, ILDEFONSO MORALES,
VOL. 349, JANUARY 19, 2001 635
LEON CIA VELASCO, OCRAVIO F.
UNA, ANA MARIA JARAMILLO,
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
*
_______________
G.R. No. 91486. January 19, 2001.
* FIRST DIVISION.
ALBERTO G. PINLAC, ATTY.
ERIBERTO H. DECENA, RODOLFO 636

F. REYES, FELIPE BRIONES,

JUANITO METILLA, JR., FELIPE A. 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
FLORES, HERMINIO ELEVADO, ANNOTATED
NARCISO S. SIMEROS, petitioners,
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY.
CORAZON A. MERRERA, ATTY.
JEAN MAKASIAR-PUNO, SERGIO
ACABAN, represented by Atty. ESTRELLA BASA, JOSE ESTEVA,
Ramon Gerona, ATTY. ROGELIO JR., CIRILO GONZALES, VILLY
VELASCO, MARTINA S. NONA, TOBIAS, MIGUEL DELA PAZ,
OVIDEO MEJICA, ALFREDO RUBEN GUILLERMO, FAUSTO
ITALIA, MARIANO GUEVARRA, YADAO, represented by Jeremias
JESUS YUJUICO, DOMINADOR Panlilio, RICARDO YAP,
RIVERA, SATURNINA SALES, ROSAURO/PATRICK MARQUEZ,
represented by Atty. Consolacion represented by Emmanuel Marquez,
Sales-Demontano, FRED CHUA, MODESTA FABRIG and MAXIMINO
SONIA SY CHUA, LAWRENCE SALCEDA, MELIA LATOMBO,
CHUA, CAROLINA C. RUBIO, TERESITA PANGILINAN-RIVERO,
ARCH. DANILO C. DE CASTRO, RUFINA CRUZ, represented by
JOSE S. LEDESMA, JAIME P. ANG, JOSEFA MANABAT, SPOUSES
VEICENTE P. ANG, MAURO U. ANITA SALONGA-CAPAGCUAN and
GABRIEL, ATTY. VIRGINIA MAYNARD CAPAGCUAN, DISCORA
GOMEZ, GIL S. BONILLA, YATCO, represented by VICTORINA
LOURDES BLANCO, represented by Y. FIRME, and CONSUELO YATCO,
Catalina Blanco, JOSEFA SANCHEZ GENEROSA MEDINA VDA. DE
and ROSALINA VILLEGAS, NOGUERA, represented by ATTY.
represented by Heidi Bobis, SHIRLEY RAYMUNDO M. NOGUERA,
BUCAG, QUIRINA O. TUVERA, BEATRIZ SALANDANAN and
represented by Wilfredo Orejuros, LOURDES ALONTE-VASQUEZ,
GREGORIO AVENTINO, represented PEDRO COSIO and VICTORINA
by Enrico Aventino, LEONARDO L. CARINO, RUTH C. ZARATE,
NICOLAS, NICOMEDES PRECIOSISIMA V. YAPCHULAY,
PENARANDA, FRANCISCA BASILISA B. YAPCHULAY, OFELIA
MEDRANO, OFELIA IGNACIO, B. YAPCHULAY, FELISA B.
ROSENDO ABUBO, represented by YAPCHULAY, FE B. YAPCHULAY,
Santos Chavez, SOLEDAD WILMA B. YAPCHULAY, FELIX B.
BAUTISTA DE COLUMNA, YAPCHULAY, MARIANO B.
represented by Zenaida Valle, YAPCHULAY, GEN. ALFREDO LIM,
MARQUITA/SEBASTIAN LOPEZ, and other registered OWNERS OF
represented by Emmanuel Marquez, VILAR-MALOLES (VIL-MA)
DELIA DORION, GERARDO L. SUBDIVISION, respondents.
SANTIAGO, FIDEL PANGANIBAN,
represented by Manuel dela Roca,
Civil Procedure; Judgments; Two
MATEO and OFELIA INOVEJAS,
justifiable grounds for an action for
REMEDIOS C. DOVAS, represented
annulment of judgment.—An action for
by Josefa Capistrano, DOMINGO
annulment of judgment is
ALTAMIRANO and SPOUSES
ROLANDO ALTAMIRANO and
637
MINERVA FETALVERO, BEATRIZ
RINGPIS, ROSARIO DE MATA,
 VOL. 349, JANUARY 19, 2001 637 to consider all the factual issues raised by
petitioners.
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
Same; Summons; The modes of service
grounded only on two justifications: (1) of summons should be strictly followed in
extrinsic fraud; and (2) lack of jurisdiction order that the court may acquire
or denial of due process. All that herein jurisdiction over the respondents, and
private respondents had to prove was that failure to strictly comply with the
the trial court had no jurisdiction; that they requirements of the rules regarding the
were prevented from having a trial or order of its publication is a fatal defect in
presenting their case to the trial court by the service of summons.—While the service
some act or conduct of petitioners; or that of summons by publication may have been
they had been denied due process of law. done with the approval of the trial court, it
does not cure the fatal defect that the
Same; Same; The very purpose of the “Metropolitan Newsweek” is not a
action for annulment of judgment was to newspaper of general circulation in Quezon
have the final and executory judgment set City. The Rules strictly require that
aside so that there will be a renewal of publication must be “in a newspaper of
litigation.—The action for annulment of general circulation and in such places and
judgment cannot and was not a substitute for such time as the court may order.” The
for the lost remedy of appeal. The very court orders relied upon by petitioners did
purpose of the action for annulment of not specify the place and the length of time
judgment was to have the final and that the summons was to be published. In
executory judgment set aside so that there the absence of such specification,
will be a renewal of litigation. Whether or publication in just any periodical does not
not the assailed Partial Decision based satisfy the strict requirements of the rules.
solely on facts and evidence presented by The incomplete directive of the court a quo
the petitioners is meritorious is irrelevant coupled with the defective publication of the
and immaterial. Thus, the Court of Appeals summons rendered the service by
did not err, nor did it violate the petitioners’ publication ineffective. The modes of service
right to due process of law, when it refused of summons should be strictly followed in
order that the court may acquire jurisdiction
over the respondents, and failure to strictly name private respondents as respondents,
comply with the requirements of the rules the trial court’s Partial Decision declaring
regarding the order of its publication is a private respondents’ titles null and void was
fatal defect in the service of summons. It clearly violative of the due process
cannot be overemphasized that the requirement of the Constitution. It is
statutory requirements of service of elementary that before a person can be
summons, whether personally, by deprived of his right or property he should
substituted service, or by publication, must first be informed of the claim against him
be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and and the theory on which such claim is
any mode of service other than that premised. The courts will not countenance a
prescribed by the statute is considered denial of the fundamental right to due
ineffective. process, which is a cornerstone of our legal
system.

638 PETITION for review on certiorari of a

decision of the Court of Appeals.
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS The facts are stated in the opinion of
ANNOTATED
the Court.
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals      Bienvenido D. Comia, Igmidio C.
hat and Roger E. Panotes for
petitioners.
Constitutional Law; Due Process; It is
     Herrera, Merrera & Herrera haw
elementary that before a person can be
Office for private respondents.
deprived of his right or property he should
          Renato A. Taguiam for
first be informed of the claim against him
respondent M.S. Florendo and Sons,
and the theory on which such claim is
Inc.
premised.—Petitioners failed to show that
          Manolito L. Asok for movants
they were the aggrieved parties. If ever
Cacatian, et al.
there was denial of due process, it was
private respondents who suffered YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
therefrom. Whether by petitioners’ failure to
effectively serve summons or by omitting to
The instant case springs from a and exclusively for more than thirty
contentious and protracted dispute (30) years; and that they have
over a sizeable piece of real property accordingly filed applications for land
situated in what is now known as Old titling in their respective names with
Balara, Sitio Veterans, Barrio Payatas the appropriate government agency.
and Silangan, all of Quezon City. While petitioners claim that the
There are numerous claimants, titled land in dispute was part of the public
and untitled alike, each either pressing domain, they named as respondents
to own a piece of it, or striving to several persons and corporations who
protect one’s right as a titled owner. are titled owners of subdivided parcels
Petitioners herein are World War II of land within the subject property.
veterans, their dependents and One of those so impleaded as a
successors-in-interest. Together, they partyrespondent was the Vil-Ma
filed a class suit primarily for Quieting Maloles Subdivision (hereinafter,
of Title before the Regional Trial Court VilMa). The individual lot owners of
of Quezon City, Branch 83, where it the said subdivision, however, were not
was docketed as Civil Case No. Q- specifically named. Since personal
35672. service of summons could not be
effected on Vil-Ma and some of the
639
other named respondents, petitioners
moved for leave of court to serve
VOL. 349, JANUARY 19, 2001 639 summons by publication which was
granted. Accordingly, the summons
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
was published in the “Metropolitan
Newsweek,” a periodical edited and
In particular, petitioners claimed that published in the City of Caloocan and
the real property, which has an Malolos, Bulacan.
1

aggregate area of 502 hectares, were Some of the named respondents

part of forest lands belonging to the filed their respective responsive
government; that they and their pleadings, while the others, including
predecessors-in-interest have occupied Vil-Ma, failed to answer, and were thus
said property continuously, adversely, declared in default. Consequently,
petitioners were allowed to present 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
evidence ex parte against the defaulted ANNOTATED
respondents. The court a quo found the Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
following facts to be conclusive:
to some of the defaulted respondents
(T)hat the case involves three parcel of thereof; that TCT No. 5690 contains no
lands, to wit: Lots 1 & 2 situated at the Old technical description on its face; that Lot 2 is
Balara, Diliman, Quezon City and Lot 3 covered by TCT No. 3548 in the name of
situated at Sitio Veterans, Barrio Payatas Eustacio Maloles married to Soledad
and Silangan, Quezon City containing an Villegas and Vicente B. Vilar doing business
aggregate area of 502 hectares more or less; under the name and style of defaulted
that Lot 1 is covered by TCT No. 5690 in the respondent Vilma Maloles Subdivision, Inc.,
name of defaulted respondent Jose V. which title was derived from TCT No. 33531
Bagtas, which title emanated from TCT No. in the name of Oscar L. Uy which in turn
48546 in the name of Emiliana Vda. De came from TCT No. 26285 in the name of
Vera Cruz which contains an actual area of Maria Lim which was immediately derived
only 294.6 sq. meters, but, when said TCT from OCT No. 614 which contains no
No. 5690 was issued the same was illegally technical description on its face, that TCT
and fraudulently expanded to cover No. 3548 likewise contains no technical
23.5767 hectares through fraudulent description on its face; that however, on the
resurveys without proper judicial face of TCT No. 33531 of Oscar L. Uy from
proceedings; that on said illegally expanded which TCT No. 3548 of defaulted
area of TCT No. 5690 in the name of respondent Vilma Maloles Subdivision, Inc.,
respondent Jose V. Bagtas, more than 363 was derived, it appears that said TCT No.
transfer certificates of title were 33531 was cancelled by another title, TCT
subsequently issued including those No. 1713 and not by TCT No. 3548, the
belonging supposed derivative thereof, which title,
from the foregoing facts, seems to have
_______________ come from nowhere considering that no
document could be produced by the
1 Annex “R,” Records, p. 259.
representative of the Register of Deeds of
640 Pasig, relative to the origin of the aforesaid
title and which register of deeds has at San Francisco del Monte with a different
jurisdiction over the same; that from this mother title, OCT No. 515, TCT No.
spurious and fraudulent TCT No. 3548 (22092)-61850 covers a lot located at Tala
which contains no technical description on Estate Caloocan City, TCT No. 14645 covers
its face, numerous TCTs were subsequently lot located at Kamuning District and TCT
issued, some of which belong to the No. 14692 covers a lot located at Bo. San
defaulted respondents hereof, that despite Isidro, Caloocan City, yet these TCTs were
the issuance has not been cancelled by the utilized by some people to claim an area
Register of Deeds of Quezon City; that Lot 3 located inside the litigated premises despite
was originally covered by OCT No. 333 from the fact that their technical descriptions, as
which 846 questionable TCTs emanated aforementioned, are different from the
and issued by the Register of Deeds of lands being sought to be covered therewith;
Quezon City perpetrated and made possible that Lots 1, 2 & 3 have been
by the illegal expansion of the actual area
thereof from 4,574 Sq. Meters, more or less, 641

to 407,3875 (sic) hectares without proper

judicial proceedings; that as an example of VOL. 349, JANUARY 19, 2001 641
the fraud perpetrated by respondents, TCT
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
No. 26205 covers a lot situated at Barrio
Ermitaño, San Juan del Monte, TCT No.
under the possession of petitioners for a
26287 covers a lot located at Barrio
continuous, public, open, & uninterrupted
Talipapa, Novaliches, TCT No. 33531 covers
period of 30 years through World War II
a lot located at the District of Cubao. TCT
Veterans Legionnaires of the Philippines,
No. 47705 covers a lot situated at Barrio
Inc., by the principle of tacking possession;
San Francisco, San Juan, TCT No. 133770
that the Bureau of Forest Development has
covers a lot located at San Bartolome,
certified that Lots 1, 2 & 3 are part of public
Caloocan City, TCT No. 45741 covers a lot
forest belonging to the government not yet
located at San Francisco del Monte, San
certified for disposition and alienation; that
Juan, TCT No. 45636 covers a lot located at
the Bureau of Forest Development knew
the municipality of San Juan, TCT No. 19-
and encouraged petitioner’s occupancy and
6370 covers a lot located at Kamuning
possession of said lots as in fact ordinary
District, TCT No. 188447 covers a lot located
residential permits were issued by said
agency to some of herein petitioners and fraudulent. Such being the case, it follows
even helped in petitioners’ acquisition2
of that none of the title holders subsequently
electrical facilities from the MERALCO. issued out of said void titles could say that
he or she is an innocent purchaser for
Resolving the sole issue of whether or value. For in the case at bar, there are
not petitioners were entitled to the really no rights that could be transferred to
land they occupy and possess, even them since even the titles of those supposed
when said land was allegedly part of owners thereof originally are themselves
unclassified public forest land and yet fictitious, x x x Second, because although
covered by transfer certificates of title the Bureau of Forest Development
in the names of the defaulted maintains, as in fact, it certified that Lots 1,
respondents, the court a quo rendered 2 & 3 are part of the unclassified public
a Partial Decision in favor of forest land of the government, and
petitioners, based on the following therefore, are not susceptible of private
disquisition: appropriation, still, due to the established
fact that the lots involved are under the
First, because as established from the
pre-
foregoing facts, OCT No. 614, TCT No.
5690, TCT No. 3548 covering Lots 1 & 2 of
_______________
the disputed land, not having technical
descriptions appearing on their respective 2 Partial Decision on Defaulted Private
face, clearly are null and void by reason Respondents, Civil Case No. Q-35672, RTC,
thereof. This is because “a torrens title is the Quezon City, Branch 83, penned by Judge Reynaldo
certificate of ownership issued under the V . Roura; Rollo, pp. 50-52; references to exhibits
Register of Deeds naming and declaring the omitted.
owner in fee simple of the real property
DESCRIBED therein, free from all liens 642
and encumbrances except such as maybe
expressly noted thereon or otherwise
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
reserved by law.” (Philippine National Bank ANNOTATED
vs. Tan Ong Zse, 51 Phil. 317 [1927]).
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
Without any technical description a title is
fictitious and the mere issuance thereof is
sent occupancy and possession of petitioners continuous, public, open and uninterrupted,
with the knowledge and tolerance of the possession thereof, the lands being
Bureau of Forest Development, the true and agricultural and, thus, are susceptible of
real nature of said lands as being public private ownership by petitioners.
forest has become highly dubious and in the WHEREFORE, premises considered,
opinion of this Court could not overcome the judgment is hereby rendered in favor of
presumption that said lands are petitioners and against the defaulted
agricultural. For “the mere fact that a tract respondents:
of land has trees upon it or has mineral
wealth within it, is not of itself sufficient to 1) Declaring petitioners through the
declare that one is forest land and the other principal petitioners hereof, to wit:
mineral land. There must be some proof of Alberto G. Pinlac, Atty. Eriberto H.
the extent as well as of the present or future Decena, Rodolfo T. Reyes, Felipe
value of the land as forest or mineral. It Briones and Juanito S. Metilla as
must be shown that the land is more absolute owners in fee simple title of
valuable for the forestry or the minerals the aforesaid Lots 1, 2 & 3 hereof by
which it contains than it is for agricultural virtue of extraordinary prescription,
purposes. Land may be classified as forest or with the exception of the lands
mineral today and after the exhaustion of covered by the respective transfer
the timber or minerals contained therein certificate of title belonging to the
may be classified as agricultural land non-defaulted respondents;
tomorrow. Hence, in case of doubt and 2) Declaring Original Certificate of
considering that it is a matter of public Title No. 614, TCT No. 5690 and
knowledge that a majority of the lands in TCT No. 3548 of the Register of
the Philippines are agricultural lands, it Deeds of Quezon City, and the
was rightly held that in the absence of subsequent TCTs issued therefrom,
evidence to the contrary any land may be with the exception of those titles
presumed to be agricultural.” And that belonging to the non-defaulted
being the case, it is clear that petitioners respondents, as null and void ab
have acquired legally a title over Lots 1, 2 & initio;
3 of this case through extraordinary 3) Ordering the Register of Deeds of
prescription of thirty (30) years of Quezon City to cancel OCT No. 614,
 TCT No. 5690 and TCT No. 3548 as so far as those areas covered by the
well as the subsequent TCTs issued cancelled OCTs and TCTs hereof are
and emanating therefrom, with the concerned, as permanent;
exception of those titles belonging to 7) Ordering the Register of Deeds of
the non-defaulted respondents, from Quezon City to issue herein
its record; petitioners the corresponding
4) Declaring the area of TCT No. 333 individual transfer certificate of
in excess of its true and actual area titles upon proper application made
of 4,574 Sq. Meters, as well as the thereof.
TCTs subsequently issued by the 3

Register of Deeds of Quezon City, SO ORDERED.

covering the area in excess of said
On May 17, 1989, or exactly one (1)
643 year and fifty-seven (57) days after the
above-quoted judgment by default was
rendered, a Petition for Annulment of
VOL. 349, JANUARY 19, 2001 643 Judgment with Certiorari, Prohibition
4
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals and Mandamus was brought before
the Court of Appeals by the titled
actual area, with the exception of owners of the subdivided lots within
those belonging to non-defaulted Vil-Ma. They assailed the default
respondents, as null and void ab judgment which nullified all their
initio; titles, arguing that the court a quo had
5) Ordering the Register of Deeds of no jurisdiction over them and their
Quezon City to cancel all TCTs respective titled properties. They also
subsequently issued based on OCT alleged that they only came to know of
No. 333 in excess of the actual area the adverse judgment when petitioners
of 4,574 Sq. Meters, with the sought the execution of the judgment
exception of those titles belonging to by attempting to dispossess some of the
the non-defaulted respondents; titled owners of the lots and making
6) Declaring the writ of preliminary formal demands for them to vacate
injunction dated August 7, 1985, in their respective properties.
 They likewise claimed that the (2) They were never made parties
Partial Decision against the defaulted to Civil Case No. Q-35672, nor
respondents was null and void on the were their lots described in the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction and complaint, published summons,
extrinsic fraud, for the reasons that: and Partial Decision. Named
defendant was VIL-MA, a
(1) Civil Case No. Q-35672, while totally separate and
it was a petition to quiet title, independent entity which had
was a collateral proceeding, not already ceased to exist way
a direct action attacking their back in January of 1976.
duly registered titles. Besides, Moreover, the summons, as
a petition for cancellation of well as the Partial Decision was
title can only be filed by a not published in a newspaper
registered owner or a person or periodical of general
having an interest in circulation. Thus, the defective
registered property, and must service of summons to said
be filed in the original land defendant did not place the
registration case in which the individual lot owners under the
decree of registration was trial court’s jurisdiction, nor
entered. are they bound by the adverse
judgment.
_______________ (3) They were denied due process
of law as they were not given
3 Ibid., pp. 52-54 (citations omitted).
their day in court. They should
4 CA-G.R. SP No. 17596.
have been included as
644 indispensable parties-
respondents in Civil Case No.
Q-35672 since the petitioners
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS therein were seeking to annul
ANNOTATED their respective transfer
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals certificates of title.
(4) Their duly registered titles even those who fail to appear or
cannot be defeated by the answer.
alleged adverse, continuous (7) The trial court cannot render
and notorious possession of the null and void in the default
petitioners since their titles are judgment the mother title
indefeasible and cannot be (OCT No. 614), from which the
acquired by prescription or petitioners’ transfer certificates
adverse possession. were derived, which the
(5) If, indeed, the subject property Supreme Court had already
is unclassified forest lands, it is declared valid and legal.
not capable of private
appropriation. The court a quo To impress upon the Court of Appeals
is bereft of authority to declare that they have a meritorious defense
motu proprio that the subject and that their petition was not
property should be reclassified intended to delay or frustrate the final
as agricultural, not forest land. disposition of the case, the titled
(6) The trial court violated Section owners cited
3(c), Rule 10 of the Rules of
645
Court which provides that
when some of several
respondents fail to answer, “the VOL. 349, JANUARY 19, 2001 645
court shall try the case against Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
all upon the answers thus filed
and render judgment upon the 5
the case of De la Cruz v. De la Cruz,
evidence thus presented,”
where the Supreme Court traced the
whenever a complaint states a
origins of OCT 614. It was held in that
common cause of action against
case, that:
several respondents.
Accordingly, the defense x x x. The Piedad Estate consists of a vast
interposed by those who answer tract of land originally registered on March
or appear to litigate the case 12, 1912 under Original Certificate of Title
should inure to the benefit of
No. 614 of the Register of Deeds of the subsequent subdivisions and transfers
Province of Rizal in the name of the of the lots within the Piedad Estate,
Philippine Government. the defaulted registered owners
The Piedad Estate was one of the so- invoked the Comments and
called friar lands which were purchased by Recommendations of the Ad Hoc
the government of the Philippines pursuant Committee created by the then
to the provisions of the Friar Lands Act, Ministry of Natural Resources, tasked
Public Act No. 1120 which was enacted on to investigate the historical
April 26, 1904. x x x. background of the Piedad and Payatas
As specifically stated above, the said Estates in Quezon City, containing
lands are not “public lands” in the sense in evidence which they would have
which those words are used in the Public substantiated had they been given
Land Act Numbered Nine Hundred and their day in court. The Ad Hoc
twenty-six and cannot be acquired or leased Committee reported, to wit:
under the provisions thereof. In the case of
Jacinto vs. Director of Lands (1926) 49 Phil. _______________
853, the Supreme Court held that the so-
called friar lands, to which the government 5 130 SCRA 666 (1984).
of the Philippines holds title, are not public 6 At 673-677.
lands but private or patrimonial property of
646
the government.
x x x      x x x      x x x
As held in Lorenzo vs. Nicolas, No. L- 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
4085, 30 July 1952, 91 Phil. 686, “from the ANNOTATED
provisions of sections 11, 12 and 16 of Act
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
No. 1120, it is apparent that the pervading
legislative intent is to sell the friar lands
FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
acquired by the government to 6
actual
settlers and occupants of the same. The Piedad Estate, situated in the
Municipality of San Mateo and Caloocan
Claiming that their individual transfer
during the time of registration in 1910,
certificates of title were derived from
covers an area of 3850.7226 hectares. The
Registration of Title under Case No. 5975 one, most of the lots of the Piedad Estate
was published in the January 21, 1910 have lost their identity both in original
issue of the Official Gazette. ownership structure and lot descriptions.
After the Piedad Estate was registered in Piedad Estate now embraces and includes a
Original Certificate of Title No. 614 in the number of private residential subdivisions
name of the Government in 1910 under the among which are the following:
provisions of Act 496, the area was
subdivided originally into 874 lots. As a 1. Villar Maloles Subdivision (owned
result of subsequent surveys executed in by Villar Maloles, Psd-21997)
the course of disposition, the number of lots 2. U.P. Sites Nos. 1 and 2
increased to 1,305. Disposition of these lots 3. Sunnyville Subdivision (Owned by
was made by the Bureau of Lands thru the Delos Santos family)
sales, under the Friar Lands Act, as early as 4. Sterling Meadows Subdivision
1910 and records show that even before the (LRC) Pcs-11110
Second World War, all lots in the Piedad
5. Dona Patrona Subdivision
Estate have been disposed of. Owing
6. Far Eastern University (43 has.)
perhaps to the scarcity of land applicants at
the time, it will be observed that a number 7. Luis Reyes (Psd-19419)
of applicants have acquired several lots 8. Jose Yulo (PLS-336-D)
totalling several hectares. Among the
vendees with several lots are the Philippine By virtue of subsequent changes in
Trust Co., the Zuzuarregui’s and the political boundaries, Piedad Estate is now
Metropolitan Water District, to name a few. within Quezon City. It is located on both
A list of lot holders in the Piedad Estate sides of Luzon Avenue and is bounded on
with the corresponding lot numbers, lot the North by the Republic Avenue; on the
areas and date of purchase from the Bureau East by private residential subdivisions
of Lands is hereto attached and marked as which includes the B.F. Homes (LRC) Psd-
ANNEX “B.” 133236, the Villa Ligaya Subdivision (Psd-
Thru a series of transfer of lots from one 65729), the Kapalaran Subdivision (Pcs-
owner to another attended at times by 47850), the Kasiyahan Subdivision (LRC)
subdivision into smaller lots and at other Pcs-12091,
times by consolidation of several lots into
647
 slightly rolling land. Location wise, it used
to be within the periphery and now in the
VOL. 349, JANUARY 19, 2001 647
heart of a metropolis. While originally it was
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals used for agricultural purposes, it has later
become urban due to population pressure
Zuzuarregui Property (Psd-34912) and the and rapid urbanization in the Metro Manila
Dona Beartiz Subdivision under Psd-39351; area. It is devoid of any timber land, more
on the South by the Don Mariano Marcos so if we talk of forest of commercial value.
Avenue; and on the South-West and West In fact, the Composite Land Classification
by the U.P. Sites Nos. 1 and 2. Committee of the MNR composed of the
Directors of BFD, BL, BFAR and BMGS,
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION
has already signed a land classification map
There is no doubt that Piedad Estate has and recommended for its release because it
long been segregated from the mass of the has absolutely no forest value.
public domain and have become private On the basis of existing records of the
lands duly registered under the Torrens Bureau of Lands and the area of the Piedad
System following the procedure for the Estate as contained in the Technical
confirmation of private lands prescribed in Descriptions of the said Estate published in
Act 496. Thus the lands inside the Piedad the January 21, 1910 issue of the Official
Estate are no longer lands of the public Gazette, there is no expansion or
domain. Neither are these lands forest enlargement of the area, hence, it is
lands, in the classification of lands for forest recommended that existing titles within the
purposes, the main criterion prescribed in area should be respected and their validity
Section 15 of P.D. 705, the Forestry Code, is upheld.
its slope. Those beyond 18% are to be x x x      x x x      x x x
preserved for forest purposes while those In view of all the foregoing, the
below are to be released as not needed for committee recommends that all existing
forest purposes, hence, as alienable and titles validly issued within the area be7
disposable. By its physical nature, location respected and their validity upheld.
and historical use, the land in question can (Emphasis supplied)
hardly be considered and classified as forest
land. Physically, it is first, level and at most
Accordingly, the defaulted titled all other persons claiming right
owners prayed that judgment be under them to vacate the
rendered: respective titled lands of the
petitioners squatted by the
_______________ former;
5. Ordering the dismissal of Hon.
7 Special Order No. 426, Series of 1986;
Judge Reynaldo Roura from
Rollo, pp. 214-221.
the Regional Trial Court,
648 Macabebe, Pampanga on the
grounds of gross incompetence
and gross ignorance of the law
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (Adm. Circular No. 4 of the
ANNOTATED Supreme Court, dated January
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals 27, 1988).
6. Making the preliminary
1. Declaring the aforesaid Partial injunction as permanent; and
Decision on defaulted private 7. Ordering the private
respondents as null and void; respondents (petitioners
2. Declaring all Residential Use herein) to pay jointly and
Permits issued by the Director solidarity to the petitioners the
of Forest Management Bureau sum of P200,000.00 as moral
as null and void; and exemplary damages, plus
the sum of P5,000.00 per lot of
3. Declaring all Transfer of
the petitioners as attorney’s
Certificates of Titles of the
fee, aside from cost of suit, and
petitioners (respondents
for any8 other relief just and
herein) emanating from OCT
proper.
614 and TCT 3548 (1713) as
valid;
On June 23, 1989, the Court of
4. Ordering private respondents Appeals granted respondents’
(petitioners herein), their (petitioners therein) application for
agents or representatives and
writ of preliminary injunction, ruling Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
that:
the questioned writ of execution of the
When this case was called for hearing on
partial judgment, dated March 21, 1988,
June 21, 1989 on the application for the
rendered in Civil Case No. Q-35672,
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction,
entitled: “Teofilo M. Gariando, et al.,
the parties and their respective counsel
petitioners versus Gregorio Dizon, et al.,
appeared and orally argued their respective
respondents,” until further orders from this
stand on the matter. It is admitted that the
Court.
herein petitioners, indispensable parties in 9
SO ORDERED.
the case, were not individually served with
summons. On November 15, 1989, the10 Court of
We believe and so hold that there is Appeals rendered a Decision granting
merit in the instant application for the petition and annulling the Partial
preliminary injunction, hence, the same is Decision in Civil Case No. Q-35762
hereby GRANTED. Upon the posting by the based on its finding that the trial
petitioners of a bond in the amount of One court’s lack of jurisdiction over the
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), persons of respondents—
subject to Our approval, let a writ of
preliminary injunction issue enjoining the x x x becomes all the more apparent when
respondents (petitioners herein), and all petitioners claim or asseverate that the
persons acting for and in their behalf, to assailed Partial Decision can not bind Vilar-
desist and refrain from enforcing or Maloles (VILMA), the umbrella name, for
implementing, or from attempting to enforce the simple reason that said PARTNERSHIP
and implement, was dissolved on January 26, 1976, for it
can no longer be sued as it had no more
_______________ juridical personality.
x x x      x x x      x x x
8 Petition, Rollo, p. 111. Furthermore, petitioners contend that
“the summons and the Partial Decision were
649
published in a local newspaper edited in
Caloocan City and Malolos, Bulacan known
VOL. 349, JANUARY 19, 2001 649
as “METROPOLITAN NEWSWEEK” 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
implying that said summons and Partial ANNOTATED
Decision were not published in a newspaper Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
of general circulation in Quezon City as
required by PD 1079, Sec. 1 thereof. DUE PROCESS BY IGNORING
Petitioners not having been duly notified of AND LEAVING UNDECIDED ALL
the hearing/proceedings, the Partial THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE
Decision being assailed is without ANSWER OF PETITIONERS IN
significance to them or as far as petitioners CA-G.R. NO. SP-17596.
are concerned
11
said Partial Decision is null II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT
and void. A-QUO HAS ACQUIRED
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration JURISDICTION OVER
was denied12
in a Resolution dated December RESPONDENT VILMA MALOLES
21, 1989. SUBDIVISION BY THE
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari PUBLICATION OF THE
which raises the following issues: SUMMONS AND PETITION AS
I. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT ORDERED BY THE COURT IN
COURT OF APPEALS’ QUESTIONED CIVIL CASE NO. Q-35672 AND SO
DECISION HAS VIOLATED THE PARTIAL DECISION
PETITIONERS’ RIGHT TO (ANNEX “B”) WAS LEGAL, VALID
AND PROPER.
_______________ III. WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE
9 Record, p. 319.
RESPONDENTS PER THEIR
10 Associate Justice Ricardo J. Francisco,
PETITION BEFORE
ponente, Associate Justices Antonio M. Martinez
RESPONDENT COURT OF
APPEALS HAS A VALID CAUSE
and Jesus M. Elbinias, concurring.
OF ACTION CONSIDERING THEY
11 Rollo, pp. 127-129.
ADOPTED CONTRADICTORY
12 Rollo, p. 136.
POSITIONS OR THEORIES OF
650 THE CASE, AND THAT
RESPONDENT COURT OF
 APPEALS13 DECISION (ANNEX “G”) aside so that there will be a renewal of
IS VOID. litiga-

We find no merit in the instant _______________

petition.
The case before the Court of 13 Petition, Rollo, p. 35.
Appeals was one for annulment of 14 Strait Times, Inc. v. CA, 294 SCRA 714
judgment, certiorari, prohibition and (1998); Salonga v. CA, 269 SCRA 534 (1997).
mandamus. In resolving the same, the 15 Ybanez v. CA, 253 SCRA 540 (1996).
Court of Appeals need not retry the
651
facts. An action for annulment of
judgment is grounded only on two
justifications: (1) extrinsic fraud; and VOL. 349, JANUARY 19, 2001 651
(2) lack 14of jurisdiction or denial of due
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
process. All that herein private
respondents had to prove was that the 16

trial court had no jurisdiction; that tion. Whether or not the assailed
they were prevented from having a Partial Decision based solely on facts
trial or presenting their case to the and evidence presented by the
trial court 15by some act or conduct of petitioners is meritorious is irrelevant
petitioners; or that they had been and immaterial. Thus, the Court of
denied due process of law. Thus, the Appeals did not err, nor did it violate
Court of Appeals need only to resolve the petitioners’ right to due process of
the issues of lack of jurisdiction, law, when it refused to consider all the
existence of extrinsic fraud, and denial factual issues raised by petitioners.
of due process of law. We also agree with the Court of
The action for annulment of Appeals’ conclusion that the Partial
judgment cannot and was not a Decision is null and void insofar as
substitute for the lost remedy of private respondents are concerned
appeal. The very purpose of the action since the latter were not duly served
for annulment of judgment was to have summons or notified of the proceedings
the final and executory judgment set against them. The summons and the
Partial Decision were published in a relied upon by petitioners did not
local newspaper edited and published specify the place and the length of time
in Caloocan City and Malolos, that the summons was to be published.
Bulacan. However, the Court of In the absence of such specification,
Appeals found the publication in said publication in just any periodical does
newspaper, namely the “Metropolitan not satisfy the strict requirements of
Newsweek,” to be invalid because the the rules. The incomplete directive of
said periodical is not considered a the court a quo coupled with the
newspaper of general circulation in defective publication
Quezon City where the subject
property is located, as required by _______________
Presidential Decree No. 1079, Section
1. 16 1 Moran, Rules of Court, 1950 ed., p. 697,
Petitioners, however, contend that citing Anuran v. Aquino, 38 Phil. 29 (1918);
the service of summons by publication Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921
was legal and in accordance with the (1918); Santiago v. Ceniza, 5 SCRA 494 (1962).
requirements of Rule 14, Section 14 of 17 Annexes “F-1” and “F-2” cited in pp. 39-40,
the Rules of Court. The service by Rollo.
publication was done pursuant to the 18 Rules of Court, Rule 14, Section 14.
orders of the trial court dated17 May 5,
652
1993 and September 29, 1983.
While the service of summons by
publication may have been done with 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
the approval of the trial court, it does ANNOTATED
not cure the fatal defect that the
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
“Metropolitan Newsweek” is not a
newspaper of general circulation in
Quezon City. The Rules strictly of the summons rendered the service
require that publication must be “in a by publication ineffective. The modes
newspaper of general circulation and of service of summons should be
in such places and 18for such time as the strictly followed in order that the court
court may order.” The court orders may acquire 19
jurisdiction over the
respondents, and failure to strictly
comply with the requirements of the titled owners, they should have been
rules regarding the order of its impleaded as party-respondents before
publication is a fatal 20
defect in the the court a quo. They were not made
service of summons. It cannot be respondents, neither were they
overemphasized that the statutory informed of the adverse proceedings
requirements of service of summons, that would result in the nullification of
whether personally, by substituted their duly registered titles. Clearly,
service, or by publication, must be there was a blatant disregard for their
followed strictly, faithfully and fully, rights as registered owners. Private
and any mode of service other than respondents’ titles and rights as
that prescribed by 21the statute is owners have been unjustly violated.
considered ineffective. Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err
Be that as it may, even granting in granting private respondents’
that the publication strictly complied petition by annulling and setting aside
with the rules, the service of summons the Partial Decision rendered by the
would still be ineffective insofar as court a quo for lack of jurisdiction and
private respondents are concerned. At for denial of due process of law.
the time the complaint for Quieting of
Title was filed on November 2, 1983, _______________
Vilma Maloles Subdivision no longer
existed as a juridical entity. Vilma 19 Gan Hock v. CA, 197 SCRA 223 (1991).
Maloles Subdivision, a partnership, 20 Sahagun v. CA, 198 SCRA 44 (1991).
was dissolved more than six (6) years 21 Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank v.
earlier, as evidenced by a Certificate of King, 172 SCRA 60 (1989).
Dissolution issued 22by the SEC dated 22 Annex “P,” Record, p. 255.
January 26, 1976. Consequently, it
653
could no longer be sued having lost its
juridical personality.
It was also established that all the VOL. 349, JANUARY 19, 2001 653
lots within the subdivision had been
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals
disposed of to private individuals,
herein private respondents. As the
Petitioners failed to show that they evident that the reopening of the case
were the aggrieved parties. If ever would not amount to an exercise in
there was denial of due process, it was futility nor is it intended to further
private respondents who suffered delay the final resolution of this
therefrom. Whether by petitioners’ controversy. The court a quo should
failure to effectively serve summons or give all the necessary parties every
by omitting to name private chance to fight their case fairly and in
respondents as respondents, the trial the open, 28 without resort to
court’s Partial Decision declaring technicalities.
private respondents’ titles null and Finally, the conclusion that the
void was clearly violative of the due Partial Decision of the court a quo is
process requirement of the void finds support in Rule 10, Section
Constitution. It is elementary that 5(c) of the then Rules of Court, which
before a person can be deprived of his provides:
right or property he should first be
informed of the claim against him and “(c) Effect of partial default.—When a
the theory on which such claim is pleading asserting a claim states a common
premised.
23
The courts will not cause of action against several defending
countenance a denial of the parties, some of whom answer and the
fundamental right to due process, others fail to do so, the court shall try the
which is a cornerstone of our legal case
24
system.
The Partial Decision was a _______________

judgment by default, which is 25 23 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 266 SCRA 515

generally looked upon with disfavor,
(1997).
for it cannot pretend to be based on the
26 24 Fabella v. CA, 282 SCRA 256 (1997).
merits of the controversy. As in this 25 Trajano v. Cruz, 80 SCRA 712 (1977).
case, the judgment by default may 26 Lesaca v. CA, 215 SCRA 17 (1992); Coombs v.
amount to a positive and considerable
Santos, 24 Phil. 446 (1913).
injustice to private respondents. 27 Sps. Rudy Ampeloquio, Sr. and Lagrimas
Hence, justice and equity demand that
27 Obnamia v. CA, G.R. No. 124243, June 15, 2000,
this case be litigated anew. It is
333 SCRA 465.
 28 Gerales v. CA, 218 SCRA 638 (1993); Goldloop the situation of the defaulted
Properties, Inc. v. CA, 212 SCRA 504 (1992). respondents should inure to the benefit
of the latter. The nullification of OCT
654
614 adversely affected the answering
respondents for they all share the
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS same mother title. In effect, the court a
ANNOTATED quo pre-judged the case even against
Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals the answering respondents, for how
could OCT 614, the mother title, be
against all upon the answers thus filed and valid for one set of respondents and
render judgment upon the evidence null and void for the other
presented.” respondents? In fine, the Partial
Decision was procedurally flawed.
In fact, the court a quo enumerated in WHEREFORE, in view of all the
the Partial Decision those who filed foregoing, the decision of the Court of
responsive pleadings. Considering that Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 17596 is
petitioners in their complaint stated a AFFIRMED and the instant petition is
common cause of action against all the DENIED for lack of merit.
named respondents, the court a quo SO ORDERED.
should have heard the case as against
all respondents, the defaulted           Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman),
respondents included. However, the Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.
trial court, unmindful of the above-      Puno, J., Took no part.
quoted rule, proceeded to receive
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
evidence ex parte only against the
defaulted respondents. The trial court’s Note.—Compliance with the rules
disposition is not only violative of the regarding the service of summons is as
rules but also a clear negation of the much an issue of due process as of
defaulted respondents’ limited rights. jurisdiction. (Ang Ping vs. Court of
Whatever defense and evidence the Appeals, 310 SCRA 343 [1999])
non-defaulted respondents may
present which would be applicable to ——o0o——
 655

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.