G.R. No. L-12580. April 30, 1959.
TOMASA AGUILAR, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. EMILIANO CAOAGDAN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The registered land originally belonged to Tomasa Aguilar, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 10499 of Tarlac. Upon her death in 1952, it was inherited by her heir Alberta Aguilar and later sold to Januario Hermitano, who became the present owner. The defendants (appellants) are occupying portions of this land, claiming it as part of the public domain under their free patent applications filed with the Bureau of Lands. The Bureau of Lands, after investigation in 1947, excluded these portions from the defendants’ applications, finding them part of Aguilar’s registered land. The defendants argue that the original registration decree (in Registration Case No. 494, Court of First Instance of Tarlac, 1919) is void due to lack of jurisdiction, because: (1) a prior registration case involving a larger parcel including this land was pending in the Pangasinan court; (2) they were not personally notified of the Tarlac registration proceedings; and (3) a later registration case (Fuster case) in Pangasinan, which included this land, was declared public land by the Supreme Court. The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs, ordering defendants to vacate and pay damages for the produce since 1947.

ISSUE

Whether the decree of registration issued in favor of the plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest is valid and indefeasible, thereby entitling the plaintiffs to recover possession and damages from the defendants.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the validity and indefeasibility of the Torrens title.
1. On Jurisdiction: The prior Pangasinan registration case was dismissed without prejudice after finding the land was actually in San Clemente, Tarlac. This transferred jurisdiction to the Tarlac court, the proper venue under Section 10 of Act No. 2347 , which confers jurisdiction on the court where the land is situated. Filing in Tarlac before the Pangasinan dismissal did not invalidate the proceedings.
2. On Lack of Personal Notice: Land registration proceedings are in rem. Personal notice to claimants is not required; publication binds all interested parties. The decree cannot be attacked for lack of personal notice, especially after one year from its issuance.
3. On the Fuster Case: The inclusion of the land in a later registration case (Fuster) does not nullify the earlier decree. Under Section 45 of Act No. 496 , a registered title becomes indefeasible after one year, and a decree cannot be altered after that period. The defendants’ claims, based only on pending homestead applications, cannot override a registered Torrens title.
Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to possession and damages. Costs against appellants.