SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 203969. October 21, 2015.]

ERNESTO OPPEN, INC. , petitioner, vs. ALBERTO COMPAS,

substituted by his heirs namely, Clifford M. Compas and Joan M.
Compas, and PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC. ,
respondents.

DECISION

MENDOZA , J : p

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the
June 29, 2012 Decision 1 and the October 1, 2012 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 119308, which denied the petition for certiorari of petitioner
Ernesto Oppen, Inc. (EOI), assailing the October 7, 2010 3 and March 4, 2011 4 Orders
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 275, Las Piñas City (RTC-Las Piñas) , in LRC
Case No. LP-05-0089. The October 7, 2010 Order denied the second motion to dismiss
led by EOI, questioning the court's jurisdiction, while the March 4, 2011 Order denied
its motion for reconsideration. HTcADC

The subject matter of the present case involves two (2) parcels of land, each with
an area of 11,452 square meters, located in Las Piñas City, covered by Transfer
Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. S-100612 5 and TCT No. S-100613, 6 and previously
registered in the name of Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. (PMMSI).
On May 21, 1984, the said properties were levied upon pursuant to the decision
rendered, and the writ of execution issued, by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 7,
Manila (MeTC-Branch 7) in Civil Case No. 098646-CV. 7 The MeTC-Branch 7 decision 8
approved the compromise agreement between Manufacturers Building, Inc. (MBI) and
PMMSI. Thereafter, the Notice of Levy in favor of MBI was annotated at the back of TCT
Nos. S-100612 and S-100613 on August 22, 1986. 9
On August 10, 1987, pursuant to the writ of execution issued by the MeTC,
Branch 16, Manila (MeTC-Branch 16), in Civil Case No. 116548, EOI annotated its lien on
TCT No. S-100162. A certi cate of sale was issued in its favor on October 19, 1987,
and entered on TCT No. S-100612 on August 24, 1989. The said property was later sold
in a public auction where EOI was the highest bidder and the Final Deed of Sale, dated
September 28, 1990, was issued after the lapse of the redemption period.
Subsequently, EOI led for the cancellation of PMMSI's title and the issuance of a new
one under EOI's name. Pursuant to a writ of execution, dated December 9, 2003, TCT
No. 95712 in the name of EOI, was issued cancelling on March 18, 2004 TCT No. S-
100612. 10
Meanwhile, on September 2, 2002, an alias writ of execution 11 was issued by
MeTC-Branch 7 in connection with the case between PMMSI and MBI. On November 8,
2002, the properties covered by TCT Nos. S-100612 and S-100613 were sold in a
public auction in which respondent Alberto Compas (Compas) was the winning bidder
and had the sale annotated on both titles on November 11, 2002. The Final Deed of Sale
12 was issued to Compas after PMMSI failed to redeem the said properties during the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 redemption period which expired on November 11, 2003.
LRC Case No. LP-05-0089
On September 28, 2005, Compas led a petition for the cancellation of TCT Nos.
S-100612 and S-100613 and for the issuance of new titles in his name before RTC-Las
Piñas, which was docketed as LRC Case No. LP-05-0089. Upon learning that TCT No. 5-
100162 had been cancelled and TCT No. T-95712 had been issued in its place under
EOI's name, Compas led his Motion to Admit Amended Petition, 13 dated March 3,
2008.
EOI led two motions to dismiss the Amended Petition of Compas. 14 On July
15, 2009, the rst motion to dismiss was led on the ground of failure to state a cause
of action. 15 It was denied by RTC-Las Piñas on the ground that Compas could rightfully
enforce its lien on the property under EOI's name. 16 aScITE

On May 21, 2010, EOI led a second motion to dismiss arguing that under
Section 108 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree,
the court with jurisdiction was the court where the original registration was led and
docketed. 17 Hence, the case should have been led with the court which heard the
proceedings for original registration docketed as LRC No. N-1238.
The RTC Order
On October 7, 2010, the RTC-Las Piñas issued an order denying EOI's second
motion to dismiss on the ground that Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 was inapplicable
and that it was vested with jurisdiction under Section 2 thereof.
EOI sought the reconsideration 18 of the October 7, 2010 Order of the RTC-Las
Piñas denying its second motion to dismiss, but said court denied the motion in its
Order, dated March 4, 2011.
Aggrieved, EOI filed a petition for certiorari 19 with the CA alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of RTC-Las Piñas for denying its second motion to dismiss and
its motion for reconsideration filed in relation thereto.
The CA Ruling
On June 29, 2012, the CA rendered the questioned decision sustaining the
jurisdiction of RTC-Las Piñas over the amended petition. The CA stated that Section 2
of P.D. No. 1529 was the applicable provision in determining whether the RTC had
jurisdiction. It explained that Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 was inapplicable because
the proceedings contemplated therein were summary in nature and relief under the said
provision could be granted only when there was unanimity among the parties. The CA
noted that the present case raised a controversial issue because Compas assailed the
title issued to EOI. HEITAD

EOI moved for reconsideration, but its motion was denied by the CA in its
assailed resolution, dated October 1, 2012.
Hence, this present petition, raising the following:
ISSUE
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE LOWER COURT'S
DECISION OF DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF THE AMENDED
PETITION DATED MARCH 3, 2008 CONSIDERING THAT:
A. AMENDED PETITION STATED NO CAUSE OF ACTION
B. LOWER COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 MATTER OF THE CLAIM
The principal issue in this case is whether the RTC has jurisdiction to hear the
amended petition of EOI.
Petitioner EOI contends that, by virtue of Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, it is the
court where the original registration was filed and issued which has jurisdiction over the
petition because it is a petition after the original registration. Thus, the amended
petition of Compas should have been led with the court which heard the proceedings
for original registration docketed as LRC No. N-1238.
In its Comment, 20 PMMSI claimed that Section 2, and not Section 108, of P.D.
No. 1529 was applicable because the latter only applied in cases of erasure,
amendment or alteration in the title certi cates and not in cases which involved
complex issues. It pointed out that the procedure laid out in Section 108 was summary
in nature and the present case could not be resolved in a mere summary proceeding as
the parties had contending claims of ownership.
In his own Comment, 21 Compas stressed that EOI, being a junior encumbrancer,
faced the risk of its right being nulli ed by a superior encumbrancer. It was for this
reason that a new title must be issued in his name as all subsequent encumbrance
must yield to his lien.
In its Reply 22 to PMMSI's comment, EOI contended that the CA failed to
appreciate that Compas, as he claimed his right as a holder of superior lien, sought the
cancellation of its title and the issuance of a new title in his name, pursuant to the Final
Deed of Sale, dated November 17, 2003. Consequently, he was praying for the
amendment of the certificates of title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. ATICcS

In in its Reply 23 to Compas' comment, EOI countered that the Register of Deeds
of Las Piñas could not be compelled to cancel EOI's title and issue a new one in his
name. It argued that, under Section 59 of P.D. No. 1529, existing encumbrances and
annotations appearing in the registration book at the time of transfer of property shall
be carried over and stated in the new certi cate of title. EOI agreed that Compas' lien
was rightfully annotated in its title but the latter could no longer have the title cancelled
and a new one issued in his name on the ground that its title became indefeasible and
incontrovertible after the lapse of one year from its nal decree. Considering that TCT
No. T-95712 was issued on March 18, 2004, Compas only had until March 18, 2005 to
question its validity. EOI stressed that Compas belatedly exercised his rights as the
amended petition was filed only on March 3, 2008.
The Court's Ruling
It is basic in law that the jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law. 24 The
jurisdiction of regional trial courts in land registration cases is conferred by Section 2
of P.D. No. 1529. It expressly provides:
Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. Judicial
proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in
rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the
Torrens system.
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for
original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests
therein, and over all petitions led after original registration of title , with
power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or
petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Commission with two certi ed copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and
decisions led or issued in applications or petitions for land registration, with
the exception of stenographic notes, within ve days from the ling or issuance
thereof.
[Emphasis Supplied]
From a perusal of the above-quoted provision, it is apparent that courts of rst
instance, now the RTC, have exclusive jurisdiction over registration proceedings,
including petitions led after the original registration of title. On the other hand, Section
108 states that:
Sec. 108. Amendment and alterations of certificates. —
No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration
book after the entry of a certi cate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the
attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper
Court of First Instance. . . .
TIADCc

All petitions or motions led under this Section as well as any other
provision of this Decree after original registration shall be led and entitled in
the original case in which the decree or registration was entered.
The CA was correct in stating that EOI's reliance on Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529
was misplaced. The appellate court aptly cited Philippine Veteran's Bank v. Valenzuela
25 where the Court held that the prevailing rule was that proceedings under Section 108
were summary in nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of mistakes which
were only clerical but certainly not controversial issues. Relief under the said legal
provision can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or that there is no
adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest. 26 Thus, the
petition was properly led with the RTC-Las Piñas where it was docketed as LRC Case
No. LP-05-0089, and not before the court which heard the original registration
proceeding under LRC No. N-1238, as the petition involved adversarial issues.
EOI cannot insist that the action should have been led with the RTC where the
original registration was led and issued considering that the case involved
controversial issues. The parties obviously lacked unanimity as EOI even led a motion
to dismiss 27 for failure to state a cause of action, claiming that its Torrens Title was
indefeasible and could not be collaterally attacked.
Even granting that Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 was applicable, EOI's second
motion to dismiss should still be denied. The second paragraph of Section 108
provides that all petitions or motions, as well as under any other provision of P.D. No.
1529 after original registration, shall be led in the original case in which the decree or
registration was made.
A closer scrutiny of Section 2 and Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 will show that the
former pertains to the grant of jurisdiction to regional trial courts while the latter refers
to the venue where the action is to be instituted. EOI's second motion to dismiss was
supposed to be on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It, however, alleges that the
petition should not have been led with the RTC of Las Piñas under LRC Case No. LP-
05-0089, but with the RTC where the original title was led and issued under LRC No. N-
1238. Based on the allegations thereof, it appeared that the second motion was
invoking the ground of improper venue.
Granting it to be so, the second motion to dismiss was rightfully denied as EOI
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 waived the ground of improper venue after it had led its rst motion to dismiss
pursuant to the Omnibus Motion Rule. Section 8 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of
Court provides that a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment or proceeding shall
include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed
waived. AIDSTE

In Spouses de Guzman v. Spouses Ochoa , 28 as a second motion to dismiss on

the ground of defective veri cation was denied pursuant to the Omnibus Motion Rule.
The Court held:
Section 8, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court de nes an omnibus motion as a
motion attacking a pleading, judgment or proceeding. A motion to dismiss is an
omnibus motion because it attacks a pleading, that is the complaint. For this
reason, a motion to dismiss, like any other omnibus motion, must raise and
include all objections available at the time of the ling of the motion because
under Section 8, "all objections not so included shall be deemed waived." As
inferred from the provision, only the following defenses Under Section 1, Rule 9,
are excepted from its application: [a] lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
[b] there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause
(litis pendentia); [c] the action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata); and [d]
the action is barred by the statute of limitations or prescription.
In the case at bench, the petitioners raised the ground of defective
veri cation and certi cation of forum shopping only when they led their
second motion to dismiss, despite the fact that this ground was existent and
available at the time of the ling of their rst motion to dismiss. Absent any
justi able reason to explain this fatal omission, the ground of defective
veri cation and certi cation of forum shopping was deemed waived and could
no longer be questioned by the petitioners in their second motion to dismiss. 29
Similar to the above-cited case, EOI erroneously filed a second motion to dismiss
raising improper venue as basis — one which is susceptible of being waived — after the
first motion to dismiss was denied. EOI only insisted that the proper venue was the RTC
where the original case in which the decree or registration was entered and not with the
RTC Las Piñas after its rst motion to dismiss alleging the failure to state a cause of
action was led and denied. Consequently, the ground of improper venue was deemed
waived and could no longer be questioned by EOI because the issue on venue was not
raised in its prior motion to dismiss.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . AaCTcI

SO ORDERED .
Leonardo-de Castro, * Brion, ** Villarama, Jr. *** and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 2250, dated October 14, 2015.
** Per Special Order No. 2222, dated September 29, 2015.

*** Per Special Order No. 2223-C, dated September 29, 2015.
1. Penned by Associate Justice Mario v. Lopez with Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas
Peralta and Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, concurring; rollo, pp. 31-41.
2. Id. at 42.

3. Penned by Presiding Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda; CA rollo, pp. 28-29.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 4. Id. at 30.

5. Rollo, pp. 84-87.

6. Id. at 88-92.
7. Id. 75.

8. Id. at 93-95.
9. Id. at 75.

10. Id. at 32.

11. Id. at 96.
12. Id. at 120-121.
13. Id. at 70-72.

14. CA rollo, pp. 70-80.

15. Rollo, pp. 14-15.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 208.

18. Id. at 236-241.

19. Id. at 255-277.
20. Id. at 371-380.
21. Id. at 411-421.
22. Id. at 382-388.

23. Id. at 435-440.

24. Department of Agrarian Reform v. Cuenca, 482 Phil. 208, 216 (2004).
25. 660 Phil. 358 (2011).
26. Philippine Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Inc. v. Teodoro R. Yangco 2nd and 3rd
Generation Heirs Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 199595, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 522, 539.
27. Rollo, pp. 159-164.
28. 664 Phil. 107 (2011).

29. Id. at 113.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com