G.R. No. 179155 , April 2, 2014
NICOMEDES J. LOZADA, Petitioner, vs. EULALIA BRACEWELL, EDDIE BRACEWELL, ESTELLITA BRACEWELL, JAMES BRACEWELL, JOHN BRACEWELL, EDWIN BRACEWELL, ERIC BRACEWELL, and HEIRS OF GEORGE BRACEWELL, Respondents.

FACTS

On December 10, 1976, petitioner Nicomedes J. Lozada filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land covered by Plan PSU-129514. The RTC of Makati City, Branch 134, granted the application on February 23, 1989. Consequently, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) issued Decree No. N-217036 on July 10, 1997, and petitioner obtained OCT No. 0-78. On February 6, 1998, within a year from the decree’s issuance, James Bracewell, Jr. filed a petition for review of the decree under Section 32 of PD 1529 before the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 275. He claimed that a portion of Plan PSU-129514, identified as Lot 5 of Plan PSU-180598 (the subject lot), was fraudulently included in petitioner’s decree. Bracewell asserted he was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject lot, having filed his own application for registration on September 19, 1963, which was granted by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 58, on May 3, 1989. He alleged petitioner deliberately concealed this fact and listed Bracewell’s deceased grandmother as an adjoining owner instead. Petitioner countered that Bracewell was a mere interloper, that his Plan PSU-129514 was approved in 1951, and that Bracewell’s Plan PSU-180598 from 1960 contained a footnote stating Lot 5 was a portion of PSU-129514. The LRA Director’s 2nd Supplementary Report dated August 5, 1996, confirmed the overlapping and recommended that petitioner amend Plan PSU-129514 to segregate Lot 5. The Las Piñas City-RTC ruled in favor of Bracewell (substituted by respondents after his death), finding petitioner obtained the decree in bad faith, and directed the LRA to set aside the decree and OCT, ordered petitioner to amend his plan to segregate the subject lot, and awarded attorney’s fees. The CA affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court 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 Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134.

RULING

Yes, the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City has jurisdiction. The petition for review of a decree of registration under Section 32 of PD 1529 must be filed in the court where the land is situated. At the time petitioner and Bracewell filed their respective registration applications, jurisdiction was vested in the Courts of First Instance (now RTCs) of the province or city where the land is located. When petitioner filed in 1976, there were no RTC branches in Las Piñas City, so jurisdiction was exercised by the RTC of Makati City. However, with the enactment of BP 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) and the subsequent establishment of the RTC of Las Piñas City “in or about 1994,” jurisdiction over matters concerning land situated in Las Piñas City properly vested in that court. Since the subject lot is located in Las Piñas City and Bracewell’s petition for review was filed in February 1998, the Las Piñas City-RTC correctly exercised jurisdiction. The Court distinguished the cited case of Joson v. Busuego, noting it was decided under a different procedural context and did not apply to the instant case where the petition was filed within the one-year period and in the court of the land’s situs. The petition was denied, and the CA decision was affirmed.