G.R. No. 43206 ; September 9, 1936
FELIX SEPAGAN, applicant-appellee, vs. PAULINO DACILLO, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Felix Sepagan applied for registration of two parcels of land under Act No. 496 . After due publication and notice, the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur adjudicated and registered the lands in his name. A final decree was issued. Two years later, Sepagan obtained a writ of possession. Paulino Dacillo, who claimed to have been in possession of a portion of one parcel for over 27 years and had a house thereon, filed a motion to restrain the writ, alleging he was not a party to the registration proceedings and was not personally notified. The lower court denied his motion, holding that the published notices were sufficient and that Dacillo, by his failure to appear despite being in possession, was estopped from opposing the writ.

ISSUE

Whether Dacillo, as a possessor of the land at the time of the registration proceedings but who did not appear or file an opposition, is considered a party to the in rem proceedings and is thus bound by the decree and subject to the writ of possession.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s orders. Land registration proceedings are in rem, binding upon the whole world. Personal notice to claimants is not required; publication and posting of notices are sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Since Dacillo was in possession at the time and the statutory notices were duly posted on the land itself, he was considered a party to the proceedings. His failure to appear and oppose the application precludes him from later challenging the decree or the writ of possession. The case of Manuel vs. Rosauro cited by Dacillo is inapplicable, as in that case the claimant’s possession began only after the decree was issued. The decree had become final and unimpeachable after the one-year period for review. The appeal was without merit.

AI Generated by Armztrong.