ADEZ REALTY INC. VS COURT OF APPEALSFACTS:This is a petition filed by herein petitioner in order to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals granting the title of the subject lots to the respondent Eugenio even when the same has already become final and executory as the appeal was not filed within the reglementary period. It raised two issues namely, whether the accused-appellant of Morong, Rizal, may acquire jurisdiction over reconstitution proceedings involving real property situated in Quezon City, and whether publication of the notice of the petition in two (2) successive issues of the Official Gazette and its posting in the bulletin board of the accused-appellant of Morong, Rizal, is sufficient compliance with Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 26.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner may still assail the CA decision.Held:The court ruled that res judicata sets in since the decision rendered by the CA has already become final and executory, since the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the reglementary period. Moreover, the petition raises the same issues and facts which has already been decided by the respondent court. Besides, as early as 1910, in Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 9 We already ruled that land registration proceedings are proceedings in rem, not in personam, and therefore it is not necessary to give personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land sought to be registered, in order to vest the courts with power or authority over the res. 10 Thus, while it may be true that no notice was sent by registered mail to petitioner when the judicial reconstitution of title was sought, such failure, however, did not amount to a jurisdictional defect. The purpose of the publication of the notice of the petition for reconstitution in the Official Gazette is to apprise

the whole world that such a petition has been filed and that whoever is minded to oppose it for good cause may do so within thirty (30) days before the date set by the court for hearing the petition. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it." Thus, notice of hearing by proper publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to clothe the court with jurisdiction, and the mere fact that a person purporting to have a legitimate claim in the property did not receive personal notice is not sufficient ground to invalidate the proceedings.

Heirs of Manuel Roxas v Court of AppealsFacts:Maguesun Management and Development Corporation filed an application for Registration of two parcels of unregistered land located in Tagaytay City in the Regional Trial Court which it bought from Zenaida Melliza who in turn, also bought the said lands from Trinidad de Leon vda de Roxas, the petitioner herein. Both sales are evidenced by a Deed of Sale. With the application, the Land registration authority sent notices of initial hearing to to Hilario Luna, Jose Gil and Leon Luna on the basis of Maguesun Corporation's application for registration. Since Trinidad de Leon vda. de Roxas was not named as an adjoining owner, occupant or adverse claimant, she was not sent a notice of the proceedings. Publication both in the Official Gazette and News Weekly then followed. Order of general default was issued, and RTC proceeded with the case. During the proceedings, the LRA reported that the subject lands had already been previously applied for by Manuel Roxas and his wife Trinidad but no decision was rendered. Hence, the RTC granted the application of Maguesun which became final and executory. It subsequently released an order for issuance of the decree but it was done before the application of Roxas

was dismissed. It was only when they were asked to vacate the lot that Trinidad learned of the sale and application of Maguesun. With this, Trinidad filed in RTC a petition for review because she claims that she has never sold the lot, and her signatures were forged on the documents Maguesun presented as the president was her niece. Also, she alleged that the latter intentionally removed her name so that she would not receive any notice and present herself as an adverse claimant. The RTC dismissed the case on the ground that it was Melizza who committed fraud, not Maguesun. Moreover, the RTC reasoned that she has no longer been paying taxes, and has abandoned the registration case thus indicates that she no longer has an interest in the subject lots. On appeal, the CA affirmed RTC citing that there was no actual or extrinsic fraud which is required in order to annul a judgment or review a decree of registration. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: whether or not private respondent Maguesun Corporation committed actual fraud in obtaining a decree of registration over two unregistered parcels of land in Tagaytay City, actual fraud being the only ground to reopen or review a decree of registration.

Held:Petition is with merit.The Court ruled that under the Property Registration Decree, registration of lands decision does not become final and incontrovertible until the expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree. Before such time, the decision remains under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering the decree, which court after hearing, may set aside the decision or decree and adjudicate the land to another party. It recognizes fraud as a valid ground for reopening and revising a decree of registration provided that

it be filed within one year, from the date of entry of said decree, that the petitioner has a real and dominical right and the property has not yet been transferred to an innocent purchaser. The court discussed the kinds of fraud: Fraud is of two kinds: actual or constructive. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.[19] Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because of its detrimental effect upon public interests and public or private confidence, even though the act is not done or committed with an actual design to commit positive fraud or injury upon other persons.[20]

Fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Fraud is regarded as intrinsic where the fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or where the acts constituting the fraud were or could have been litigated therein, and is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured, so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy.[21] Extrinsic fraud is also actual fraud, but collateral to the transaction sued upon.[22]

The distinctions are significant because only actual fraud or extrinsic fraud has been accepted as grounds for a judgment to be annulled or, as in this case, a decree of registration reopened and reviewed. Persons who were fraudulently deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the original registration case are entitled to a review of a decree of registration.

Failure and intentional omission of the applicants to disclose the fact of actual physical possession by another person constitutes an allegation of actual fraud.[28] Likewise, it is fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact, upon which benefit is obtained to the prejudice of a third person. And the court found that this is what was committed by Maguesun. The SC found that on the original application, Roxas was intentionally omitted as adverse claimant, but when it

submitted the same document to SC, the name Roxas was found. Section 15 of Presidential Decree No 1529 also requires the applicant for registration to state the full names and addresses of all occupants of the land and those of adjoining owners, if known and if not known, the extent of the search made to find them. Respondent corporation likewise failed to comply with this requirement of law. Moreover, it stated in its application that the lot is unoccupied when in fact the caretaker was on the said lot which constitutes another fraud. Through such misfeasance, the Roxas family was kept ignorant of the registration proceedings involving their property, thus effectively depriving them of their day in court.

The court also ruled that Maguesun did not comply with the publication requirements, as it did not publish in a newspaper of general circulation but merely on News Weekly. Although publication in the OG is enough for the court to acquire jurisdiction, the fact that publication was not made in a newspaper of general circulation is material and relevant in assessing the applicant's right or title to the land.