#68 Roxas vs. Enriquez (G.R (G.R.. No. No. L-8 L-853 539 9 Dece Decemb mber er 24, 1914 1914)) By: T By: Tangonan, angonan, Julius Julius Doctrine: 1. Upon Upon the the public publicati ation on and postin posting g of the the summo summons ns and and its service upon and mailing to the person, if any, upon whom it is herein directed to be specially served, the court shall have full and complete jurisdiction over the plainti and said property and of the person and every one claiming any estate, right, title, or interest in or to or lien upon said property, or any part thereof, and shall be deemed to have obtained the possession and control of said property, for the purpose of the action, and shall shall have full and complete complete jurisdic jurisdiction tion to render render judgment judgment therein, which is provided for in the law
them in default and had -arcel . registered as the absolute property of 'o(as 6. 'o(as 'o(as then then sold sold -arc -arcel el . and all build building ings s ther thereon eon to the the $asonic Temple .ssoc of $anila The latter then reuested the judge of the %)' to issue a new certi8cate to it 0uring the various hearings for such, the heirs of 0on nriue3 objected objected to the same . 9otwit 9otwithst hstand andin ing, g, the %)' ruled ruled in favour favour 'o(as 'o(as and the the $onastic Temple :till, the objectors 8led a motion for new trial on the ground that they had no notice of the pendency of the original action to con8rm the title of said property !ssue: ;<9 the %)' erred when it did not give personal notice to each of the appellants
2. The petition contained a statement of the names of the adjoining owners of the land in uestion, -arcel ., as well as their addresses, and the heirs of .ntonio nriue3
Ratio: " $e%&: %ontrary to the position of the appellants, personal notice was not absolu absolute tely ly neces necessar sary y in order order to justif justify y the the court court4s 4s action action of rend render ering ing a decr decree ee in favor favor of 'o(as 'o(as The %ourt stated stated that that personal notice of the pendency of the original petition had been given given and that that a publi publicat cation ion of the same had been been made in accordance with the provisions of sections =1 and =2 of .ct 9o >!# .fter the e(piration of the period during which notice must be given, the original cause was set down for hearing
3. .fter the e(aminer made a careful e(amination of the said land, he prep prepar ared ed a repo report rt recom ecomme mend ndin ing g the the said said parc parcel els4 s4 registration in the name of 'o(as .ccordingly, the cler of the %)' sent a copy of the notice of hearing to each of the persons mentioned in the Order of publication by registered mail The cler cler also also had the same same publi publish shed ed in a newsp newspape aperr of gen gen %irculation
&urthermore, :ection =2 *.ct 9o >!#+ provides that? @ The court shall, so ar as !t "eems !t #oss!ble, re$u!re #roo o actual %ot!ce to all the a"&o!%!%' o%ers a%" to all #erso%s ho a##ear to hae a% !%terest !% or cla!m to the la%" !%clu"e" !% the a##l!cat!o%.* At will be noted also that the petitioner in registration cases is not by law reuired to give any notice to any person
Facts: 1. On 12 Jan 1!"#, petition petitioner er $aria del %onsuelo %onsuelo &elisa &elisa 'o(as presented a petition in the %ourt of )and 'egistration *%)'+ to registere under the Torrens system four parcels of land, nown as -arcel ., -arcel /, -arcel %, and -arcel 0, all of which were located in the city of $anila
4. )ater, .tty $odesto 'eyes, in behalf of the city of $anila, called the court4s attention to the fact there was an alleged 5error of closure6 in the plan of -arcel ., and ased the court to correct the same 7owever, no such correction was ever made 5. 0ue to the failure of the defendants to appear to impugn the application within the period 8(ed by law, the court declared
)astly, the proceedings for the registration of land, under .ct 9o >!#, are in rem and not in personam . proceeding in rem, dealing with a tangible tangible res, may be institut instituted ed and carried carried to judgment judgment without personal service upon the claimants within the state or notice by name to those outside of it Jurisdiction is secured by the power power of the court over the res res )ogicall )ogically y speaing speaing,, to reuir reuire e
personal notice to all possible claimants would impossible for how could personal notice be ever given to +u%%o% cla!ma%ts.
Thus, in actions in rem, personal notice to owners of a res is not necessary to give the courts jurisdiction to deal with and to dispose of the same, and meant that the %)' did not err in registering the land in favor 'o(as
