Maria Consuelo Felisa Roxas vs Rafael Enriquez

Facts:1) Maria Consuelo applied for a titles of 4 parcels of land in 1906.2) The adjoining owners of the land were informed of such application, but no one went to question it so they were declared in default.3) The same application was published in two newspapers.4) The City of Manila questioned in court the borders of Parcel A. The Court ordered the correction but none was executed. 5) The court approved the application and Consuelo was given the titles. 6) In 1912, the City of Manila appied for the correction of the title because it covered a public road.7) It was also in 1912 the Consuelo went to court to ask for a correction of the title because there were 2 buildings which were not included in the title, although it was in the application.8) She sold the same to Masonic Temple Assoc.9) During the hearing, the heirs of Antonio Enriquez, owners of the adjoining land, appeared in court questioning the title.10) The Court granted the motions of the City of Manila and Consuelo.ISSUE:Was the court correct in denying the opposition of the heirs of Enriquez?

HELD:1) NO notice was served to the heirs of Enriquez: Records show that the counsel of Enriquez received a notice. Even if it is denied by the party, personal notification is not a requirement of the law. Registration is a proceeding in rem and not in personam. It is the only practical way that allows the Torrens system to fulfill its purpose.