GR 47380; (February, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47380 February 23, 1999
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CARMEN TIBUDAN, EUGENIA TIBUDAN, LOLITA TIBUDAN-SOLIS and FRANCISCO TIBUDAN, respondents.
FACTS
Tranquilino Tibudan filed an application for registration of a parcel of land. Private respondents, the Tibudans, filed an opposition claiming ownership of portions of the land. During the proceedings, Lourdes Marmolejo, claiming to be Tranquilino’s wife, was substituted as the applicant, asserting the land was her paraphernal property. The Director of Lands also filed an opposition, seeking a declaration that the land was public. Subsequently, Marmolejo filed an ex-parte motion to withdraw her application, which the trial court granted.
After the withdrawal, only the Tibudan oppositors and the Director of Lands remained as contending parties. The Tibudans moved to be allowed to adduce evidence to prove their registerable title over the portions they claimed, as they had prayed for affirmative relief in their opposition. The trial court, however, denied their motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Tibudan oppositors the right to present evidence in support of their opposition and claim for affirmative relief after the applicant withdrew the application.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision annulling the trial court’s orders. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a land registration proceeding and the rights of an oppositor who seeks affirmative relief. A land registration case is a proceeding in rem, binding against the whole world. An opposition that not only objects to the applicant’s claim but also asserts the oppositor’s own title and seeks registration in their name constitutes a counterclaim for affirmative relief.
When the applicant withdraws the application, the court does not automatically lose jurisdiction. The withdrawal merely removes the applicant from the case. The proceeding continues with respect to the oppositors who have asserted independent claims of ownership, as they are effectively transformed into applicants for the portions they claim. The court’s duty to resolve conflicting claims over the land persists. Denying the Tibudans the opportunity to prove their claim effectively dismissed their counterclaim without a hearing, which is a violation of due process and constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The trial court erroneously treated the withdrawal as a termination of the entire case, failing to recognize that the Tibudans’ opposition, by seeking registration in their own names, survived the applicant’s withdrawal and required adjudication on the merits.