Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Acosta Vs Salazar
Acosta Vs Salazar
FACTS:
On November 19, 1985, respondents Trinidad and
Aniceta Salazar (hereinafter, Salazars), filed a
petition for the cancellation of the entries annotated
at the back of Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
No. 40287 registered in the names of spouses Juan
Soriano and Vicenta Macaraeg, who died. The
Salazars claim that two of the entries Entry Nos.
19756 and 20102 are void since no consolidation of
rights appear in the Registry of Deeds (RD) of
Tarlac to support the entries; and that Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 9297, which
supposedly cancelled OCT No. 40287, is nonexistent according to a certification issued by the
RD. RTC Branch 63 of Tarlac resolved to grant the
petition and ordered the cancellation of Entry No.
20102. The Salazars filed an urgent motion praying
for the issuance of an order to direct the RD of
Tarlac to recall all titles issued under Entry Nos.
19756 and 20102 and to cancel all the tax
declarations issued based thereon. The motion was
granted.
Herein petitioners together with other
subsequent purchasers for value of the disputed
property twenty-seven (27) in their comment, the
oppositors contended, among others, that they had
acquired their titles in good faith and for value, and
that the lower court, acting as a land registration
court, had no jurisdiction over issues of ownership..
On December 20, 2000, Branch 64 of the
RTC of Tarlac dismissed the complaint. The trial
court faulted the Salazars for failure to present proof
that they are heirs of the late Juan Soriano. It also
declared TCT No. 219121 issued in the name of the
Salazars as null and void, and affirmed TCT No.
9297 as well as all certificates of title derived
therefrom.
ISSUE: WON the cancellation of entries is valid.
HELD:
Invalid. It is true that the registration of land under
the Torrens system is a proceeding in rem and not in
personam. Such a proceeding in rem, dealing with a
tangible res, may be instituted and carried to
judgment without personal service upon the
claimants within the state or notice by mail to those
outside of it. Jurisdiction is acquired by virtue of the
power of the court over the res. Such a proceeding
would be impossible were this not so, for it would
hardly do to make a distinction between
constitutional rights of claimants who were known
and those who were not known to the plaintiff,
when the proceeding is to bar all.
More crucial is the fact that both parties in this case
are dealing with property registered under
the Torrens system. To allow any individual, such as