GR L 21885; (August, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21885; August 3, 1966
Government of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, plaintiff and appellee, vs. Bonifacio Abin, et al., claimants. Antonio P. Chua, movant and appellant.
FACTS
In Cadastral Case No. 1, Sorsogon, Apolinaria Tabuena claimed Lot No. 3276. She died during the proceedings, and her estate was settled in Special Proceedings No. 2259, with her son Enrique Tabuena appointed as special administrator. On April 26, 1928, the Cadastral Court awarded Lot No. 3276 to her heirs, subject to creditors’ claims. On September 21, 1928, Enrique Tabuena, as special administrator, sold the lot to the Sorsogon Chinese School to pay the decedent’s debts, which sale was approved by the probate court on October 27, 1928. On August 7, 1934 (before the 1935 Constitution took effect), the Sorsogon Chinese School sold the lot to Chua Mang, a Chinese national. On March 27, 1962, Chua Mang sold it to Antonio P. Chua, a Filipino citizen. On January 7, 1963, Antonio P. Chua filed a motion in the Cadastral Court praying for an order to issue the final decree of registration in the name of the late Apolinaria Tabuena, subject to his rights as successor-in-interest. No notice of this motion was sent to the heirs of Apolinaria Tabuena. The Cadastral Court denied the motion on January 19, 1963, stating a decree had been ordered on July 16, 1928. Antonio P. Chua filed a motion for reconsideration, and the Land Registration Commissioner manifested that no final decree had been issued, so the 1928 decision could still be amended. Again, no notice was given to the heirs. The Cadastral Court denied the motion for reconsideration on March 20, 1963, holding that Antonio P. Chua had no right to be substituted as he did not derive title from the awardees (the heirs). Another motion for reconsideration was denied, and Antonio P. Chua appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the Cadastral Court’s denial of Antonio P. Chua’s motion and motions for reconsideration, without notice to the heirs of Apolinaria Tabuena to whom the lot was awarded, was proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court set aside the appealed order and remanded the case. It held that the heirs of Apolinaria Tabuena, to whom the land was adjudicated, were not given notice of Antonio P. Chua’s motion and subsequent motions for reconsideration, and the hearings were held in their absence. This was not in consonance with practical justice and the requirements of due process. Citing Carpio vs. Carpio, the Court directed the trial court to hold a regular and formal hearing on Antonio P. Chua’s motion filed on January 7, 1963, with notice to the heirs of Apolinaria Tabuena, and thereafter to resolve said motion. No costs.