ZENAIDA ACOSTA, EDUARDO ACOSTA, ARNOLD ACOSTA, DELIA ACOSTA, SPS. TEODULO MACHADO AND AURORA ORENZA, SPS. ROLDAN PALARCA AND PACITA PANGILINAN, SPS. FROMENCIO JONATAS AND LUCENA…

Acosta versus Salazar

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Zenaida Acosta and the other subsequent purchasers for value of a parcel of land in Tarlac against Trinidad Salazar and Aniceta Salazar. The Salazars had earlier obtained, through an ex parte petition in a land registration court, an order cancelling certain annotations on an old certificate of title and, later, a new certificate of title in their own names. When the Salazars then filed an action for quieting of title, the purchasers resisted, insisting that the orders of the land registration court were void because they were never impleaded. The case matters because it draws the line between a true proceeding in rem and a proceeding quasi in rem, and it reminds every reviewee that a void order never acquires finality and can be slain at sight.

Procedural History

The Salazars first filed a petition for cancellation of entries in the Registry of Deeds of Tarlac, docketed as a land registration case before Branch 63 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac. That court granted the petition and later issued orders directing the Register of Deeds to recall and cancel all titles issued under the cancelled entries. No respondent was impleaded. When the twenty-seven titleholders, including the petitioners, filed a comment, Branch 63 withdrew all incidents without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate action in a proper forum.

The Salazars then filed a complaint for quieting of title before Branch 64 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac. On December 20, 2000, Branch 64 dismissed the complaint, faulted the Salazars for failing to prove that they were heirs of Juan Soriano, declared their certificate of title null and void, and affirmed the earlier certificate of title and all titles derived from it. The Salazars appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Branch 64 erred in nullifying the final orders of a court of equal rank, and that the land registration proceeding was an action in rem so that personal notice was unnecessary. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and they came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Original Certificate of Title No. 40287 was registered in the names of spouses Juan Soriano and Vicenta Macaraeg, who died without issue. On February 17, 1950, Entry No. 20102 was annotated at the back of that title, covering a consolidation subdivision survey plan from which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9297 was issued in the names of the heirs of Juan Soriano over several lots.

On November 19, 1985, the Salazars filed an ex parte petition for cancellation of the entries, claiming that the entries were void and that the transfer certificate was non-existent. No respondent was impleaded. Branch 63 granted the petition and ordered the cancellation of Entry No. 20102, then later ordered the Register of Deeds to recall and cancel all titles issued under the cancelled entries. The Register of Deeds protested that compliance would deprive the registered owners of due process, but the court persisted and threatened contempt. On March 7, 1989, the old certificate was reconstituted and a new certificate of title was issued in the names of the Salazars, without the cancelled entries.

It was at this stage that the petitioners and other subsequent purchasers for value, twenty-seven titleholders in all, appeared and filed their comment, claiming good faith and value and challenging the jurisdiction of the land registration court over issues of ownership. Branch 63 then withdrew all incidents without prejudice. The Salazars filed the action for quieting of title, but the trial court dismissed it for failure to prove heirship, and the Court of Appeals reversed. The petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for cancellation of entries filed by the Salazars before Branch 63 was a proceeding in rem that validly bound the petitioners without their being impleaded.
• Whether or not the orders of Branch 63, issued without impleading indispensable parties, acquired finality and became binding on the petitioners.
• Whether or not the Salazars' claim, pursued only after more than thirty years, was barred by prescription or laches.

Applicable Provisions

Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Property Registration Decree, provides:

Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

This provision bears on the case because the Salazars tried to impugn the Torrens titles of the petitioners through an ex parte petition rather than a direct action in accordance with law.

Article 1141 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1141. Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years. This provision is without prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of ownership and other real rights by prescription.

This provision bears on the case because the Court noted that the Salazars remained silent for more than thirty years before questioning the ownership of the land.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled for the petitioners. Registration under the Torrens system is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction is acquired by the power of the court over the res. But the Court held that the Salazars' petition for cancellation of entries was not an action in rem. It was in the nature of an action quasi in rem, and it ought to have been directed against specific persons, namely the heirs of Juan Soriano and their successors-in-interest. The Salazars should have impleaded them as indispensable parties, and having failed to do so, the petitioners were not bound by the dispositions of Branch 63.

On the second issue, the Court held that the orders of Branch 63 never acquired finality. Any judgment or order issued without indispensable parties is null and void for want of authority on the part of the court to act with respect to the parties never impleaded. The Court quoted the maxim that what is void from the beginning does not become valid by lapse of time. A void order is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid order, may be entirely disregarded, and has no legal or binding effect for any purpose. All proceedings founded on it are themselves invalid.

On the third issue, the Court noted that for more than thirty years, from the annotation of Entry No. 20102 in 1950 until the filing of the ex parte petition in 1985, the Salazars remained silent and never questioned the ownership before the proper forum. The Court concluded that if there was any validity to their claim, it had already prescribed or, at the very least, had become stale due to laches.

Doctrine

A proceeding for the cancellation of entries in a Torrens certificate of title, directed against specific persons and their successors-in-interest, is an action quasi in rem, not an action in rem. The registered owners and all persons claiming under them are indispensable parties, and the failure to implead them renders the proceedings void for want of authority in the court to act against them. A void order never acquires finality; it may be disregarded by any tribunal and slain at sight. A Torrens certificate of title cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law, and no individual may impugn it through a mere ex parte petition. Finally, a real action over immovable property prescribes after thirty years, and a claim left dormant for that period may also be barred by laches.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were set aside, and the decision of Branch 64 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac dismissing the complaint and upholding the petitioners' titles was reinstated, with costs against the Salazars.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a void order is a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, and it never becomes valid by lapse of time. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between actions in rem and quasi in rem, the indispensable party rule in land registration, and the indefeasibility of Torrens titles against collateral attack.