G.R. No. 59731 ; January 11, 1990
ALFREDO CHING, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS & PEDRO ASEDILLO, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land originally registered under spouses Maximo Nofuente and Dominga Lumandan. In 1961, the property was sold to Ching Leng, who obtained Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 91137. Ching Leng died in Boston, USA, in 1965. His son, petitioner Alfredo Ching, was appointed administrator of his estate in a duly published proceeding in 1965, and the subject property was included in the estate’s inventory. Thirteen years later, in 1978, private respondent Pedro Asedillo filed a complaint for reconveyance and cancellation of title against “Ching Leng and/or Estate of Ching Leng,” alleging that the defendant’s whereabouts were unknown and could be served summons only by publication.
Summons was published in a newspaper. As no answer was filed, the trial court declared the defendant in default, heard the case ex-parte, and rendered a judgment in 1979 ordering the reconveyance of the property to Asedillo and the cancellation of TCT No. 91137. This decision was also served by publication. Alfredo Ching learned of the judgment in October 1979 and moved to set it aside, arguing the court never acquired jurisdiction over the estate of Ching Leng. The trial court initially granted his petition but later reinstated the 1979 judgment upon Asedillo’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, Ching Leng or his estate, through summons by publication, thereby rendering its judgment valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction. The action was filed against a deceased person, Ching Leng, who died in 1965. A dead person cannot be a party to a suit, and no jurisdiction can be acquired over his estate through summons served upon a deceased defendant. The proper procedure was for Asedillo to file his claim in the existing estate proceedings (Sp. Proc. No. 1956-P) already pending since 1965, where Alfredo Ching had been duly appointed administrator. Service of summons by publication against a dead person is void and does not satisfy due process. Consequently, the default judgment and all subsequent orders stemming from it are null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Court found Asedillo’s action barred by laches. He waited 19 years from the issuance of the decree of registration and 13 years from Ching Leng’s death to assert his claim. This unreasonable delay, coupled with the fact that Ching Leng was an innocent purchaser for value with a Torrens title, warranted the dismissal of the complaint. The Torrens system aims to quiet title, and a registered owner should not be subject to such belated claims. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. 6888-P.