Lozada vs. Bracewell

The Regional Trial Court of the locality where the land is situated has jurisdiction over a petition for review of a decree of registration under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, notwithstanding that the decree was issued by a different RTC branch, particularly where the original application was filed in the latter only because no RTC branch existed in the former at the time of commencement of proceedings.

Petitioner Nicomedes J. Lozada filed an application for registration of a parcel of land situated in Las Piñas City covered by Plan PSU-129514 in December 1976. At that time, no RTC branch existed in Las Piñas City, necessitating filing in the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134, which granted the application on February 23, 1989. The Land Registration Authority subsequently issued Decree No. N-217036 on July 10, 1997, followed by Original Certificate of Title No. 0-78. Meanwhile, James Bracewell, Jr. had filed a separate application in 1963 for Lots 1-5 of Plan PSU-180598 (including the subject Lot 5), which was granted by RTC Makati City, Branch 58 on May 3, 1989. An LRA report confirmed that Lot 5 of Bracewell's plan overlapped with and formed part of Lozada's registered land.

• Nature of the Proceedings: The case originated from conflicting land registration applications over a parcel of land in Las Piñas City. Petitioner Lozada obtained Decree No. N-217036 and OCT No. 0-78 covering Plan PSU-129514 through proceedings in RTC Makati City, Branch 134, while respondent Bracewell (substituted by his heirs) obtained a decree covering Lots 1-5 of Plan PSU-180598 through RTC Makati City, Branch 58.
• The Overlapping Claims: The subject lot, identified as Lot 5 of Plan PSU-180598 (3,097 square meters), was found to be a portion of the land covered by petitioner's Plan PSU-129514. An LRA Supplementary Report dated August 5, 1996 confirmed the overlap and recommended that petitioner cause the amendment of his plan to segregate Lot 5.
• Allegations of Fraud: Bracewell alleged that petitioner deliberately concealed Bracewell's status as an adjoining owner and instead listed Bracewell's deceased grandmother, Maria Cailles, in the application, thereby preventing Bracewell from objecting to the registration.
• Procedural History of Applications: Petitioner's Plan PSU-129514 was approved in 1951, while Bracewell's Plan PSU-180598 was surveyed in 1960 with a footnote indicating Lot 5 formed part of Plan PSU-129514. Bracewell had been paying taxes on the subject lot since 1962 and was recognized as owner in Bureau of Lands records since 1965.
• Creation of RTC Las Piñas: The RTC of Las Piñas City was established around 1994 pursuant to Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), which took effect on August 14, 1981.

• Jurisdiction: Petitioner maintained that the petition for review under Section 32 of PD 1529 should have been filed with the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134—the court that rendered the decision and ordered the issuance of Decree No. N-217036—citing Joson v. Busuego (1964) for the principle that the decree remains under the control of the court that rendered it while the one-year review period has not elapsed.
• Conciliation: Petitioner argued that Bracewell failed to submit the dispute to conciliation proceedings as required by law.
• Forum Shopping: Petitioner contended that Bracewell committed forum shopping because the decision granting Bracewell's application for registration over Lots 1-5 of Plan PSU-180598 was still pending resolution before the Court when Civil Case No. LP 98-0025 was filed.
• Bias: Petitioner assailed the trial judge's "unusual interest" in the case, implying bias.

• Jurisdiction and Venue: Respondents countered that since the subject land is situated in Las Piñas City, the RTC thereof had jurisdiction over the petition for review. They explained that the original application was filed in Makati only because no RTC existed in Las Piñas at that time (December 1976), and that the filing in Las Piñas RTC was merely a rectificatory implementation of venue rules.
• Substantiation of Fraud: Respondents argued that they were able to substantiate their claim of actual fraud in the procurement of Decree No. N-217036—the only ground for review under Section 32 of PD 1529—and that the petition was filed within the one-year reglementary period.
• Ancillary Issues: Respondents maintained that (a) no conciliation was required because the LRA, a government instrumentality, was impleaded; (b) no forum shopping was committed because the petition for review and the pending application involved different parties and issues; and (c) the award of attorney's fees was within the trial court's sound discretion.

• Jurisdiction over Petition for Review: Whether the RTC of Las Piñas City has jurisdiction over the petition for review of Decree No. N-217036, which was issued as a result of the judgment rendered by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134.
• Forum Shopping: Whether Bracewell committed forum shopping in filing the petition for review while his application for registration was pending.
• Conciliation: Whether the failure to submit to conciliation proceedings was fatal to respondents' cause.
• Attorney's Fees: Whether the award of attorney's fees was proper.

• Jurisdiction over Petition for Review: The RTC of Las Piñas City properly exercised jurisdiction. While Section 32 of PD 1529 requires filing in the "proper Court of First Instance," and the general rule places the decree under the control of the rendering court while the one-year period has not elapsed, the peculiar circumstances warranted filing in Las Piñas. The application was filed in Makati only because no RTC existed in Las Piñas in 1976; under Section 2, Rule 4 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court, venue for real actions lies where the property is situated. The creation of RTC Las Piñas in 1994 allowed the rectification of this procedural impediment. Venue being merely procedural, it yields to the greater interests of orderly administration of justice.
• Forum Shopping: No forum shopping was committed. The petition for review of the decree and the pending application for registration involved different parties and issues.
• Conciliation: No conciliation was required because the LRA, a government instrumentality, was impleaded in the proceedings.
• Attorney's Fees: The award was within the sound discretion of the trial court and adequately discussed by the appellate court.

• Jurisdiction over Land Registration Proceedings: Under Section 17 of PD 1529 and Section 2, Rule 4 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court, applications for land registration and petitions for review of decrees must be filed with the RTC of the province or city where the land is situated.
• Review of Decrees Under Section 32 of PD 1529: A petition for reopening and review of a decree of registration must be filed in the proper RTC within one year from entry of the decree, based only on the ground of actual fraud. As long as the final decree has not been entered by the LRA and the one-year period has not elapsed, the decision remains under the control of the court rendering it.
• Elimination of Dual Jurisdiction: PD 1529 eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction of RTCs and their limited jurisdiction as cadastral courts. RTCs now have the power to hear all questions arising from applications for original registration and petitions filed after registration.
• Venue as Procedural: Venue is merely a matter of procedure and must succumb to the greater interests of the orderly administration of justice. The lack of an RTC branch in the locality at the time of filing does not permanently fix venue in the court where the case was initially filed once a proper court is established in the locality.

• "As long as a final decree has not been entered by the [LRA] and the period of one (1) year has not elapsed from the date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it."
• "PD 1529... eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it as a cadastral court."
• "Venue is only a matter of procedure and, hence, should succumb to the greater interests of the orderly administration of justice."
• "The filing of the petition for review before the Las Piñas City-RTC was only but a rectificatory implementation of the rules of procedure then-existing, which was temporarily set back only because of past exigencies."

• Joson v. Busuego, 120 Phil. 1473 (1964) — Followed for the general rule that the court rendering the decree retains control while the one-year period has not elapsed, but distinguished in light of PD 1529's elimination of dual jurisdiction and the peculiar venue circumstances of the case.
• City of Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011 — Cited for the rule that jurisdiction over land registration is vested in the RTC of the province or city where the land is situated.
• Atty. Gomez v. CA, 250 Phil. 504 (1988) — Cited for the principle that the decision remains under the control of the rendering court until the final decree is entered and the one-year period has elapsed.
• Heirs of Lopez v. De Castro, 381 Phil. 591 (2000) and Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Yap, 211 Phil. 641 (1983) — Cited for the principle that venue is procedural.

• Section 32, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Governs the review of decrees of registration based on actual fraud, filed within one year in the proper Court of First Instance.
• Section 17, Presidential Decree No. 1529 — Vests jurisdiction over applications for land registration in the RTC of the province or city where the land is situated.
• Section 2, Rule 4 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court — Established venue for real actions in the province where the property lies.
• Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) — Authorized the creation of RTCs in different judicial regions, including Las Piñas City.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez.