Republic of the Philippines court.5 Consequently, on July 10, 1997, the LRA issued Decree No.

SUPREME COURT N-217036 in the name of petitioner, who later obtained OCT No. 0-
Baguio City 78 covering the said parcel of land.6

SECOND DIVISION On February 6, 1998, within a year from the issuance of the
aforementioned decree, James Bracewell, Jr. (Bracewell) filed a
G.R. No. 179155 April 2, 2014 petition for review of a decree of registration under Section 32 of
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529,7 otherwise known as the
NICOMEDES J. LOZADA, Petitioner, "Property Registration Decree," before the RTC of Las Piñas City,
vs. Branch 275 (Las Piñas City-RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. LP
EULALIA BRACEWELL, EDDIE BRACEWELL, ESTELLITA 98-0025,8 claiming that a portion of Plan PSU-129514, consisting
BRACEWELL, JAMES BRACEWELL, JOHN BRACEWELL, of 3,097 square meters identified as Lot 5 of Plan PSU-180598
EDWIN BRACEWELL, ERIC BRACEWELL, and HEIRS OF (subject lot) – of which he is the absolute owner and possessor –
GEORGE BRACEWELL,Respondents. is fraudulently included in Decree No. N-217036.9 He allegedly filed
on September 19, 1963 an application for registration and
confirmation of the subject lot, as well as of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
DECISION
Plan PSU-180598, situated in Las Piñas City, which was granted
by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 58, on May 3, 1989.10 He further
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: averred that petitioner deliberately concealed the fact that he
(Bracewell) is one of the adjoining owners, and left him totally
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the ignorant of the registration proceedings involving the lots covered
Decision2 dated May 23, 2007 and the Resolution3 dated August by Plan PSU-129514.11 Instead of impleading him, petitioner listed
14, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 81075, Bracewell’s grandmother, Maria Cailles, as an adjoining owner,
which affirmed the Decision4 dated July 31, 2003 of the Regional although she had already died by that time.12
Trial Court (RTC) of Las Pifias City, Branch 275 in Civil Case No.
LP 98-0025, directing the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to set In his answer13 to the foregoing allegations, petitioner called
aside Decree of Registration No. N-217036 (Decree No. N- Bracewell a mere interloper with respect to the subject lot, which
217036) and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-78 in the the Bureau of Lands had long declared to be part and parcel of
name of petitioner Nicomedes J. Lozada (petitioner), and ordering Plan PSU-129514.14 He argued that his Plan PSU-129514 was
the latter to cause the amendment of Plan PSU-129514 as well as approved way back in 1951 whereas Bracewell’s Plan PSU-
segregate therefrom Lot 5 of Plan PSU-180598. 180598 was surveyed only in 1960, and stated that the latter plan,
in fact, contained a footnote that a portion known as Lot 5, i.e., the
The Facts subject lot, is a portion of the parcel of land covered by Plan PSU-
129514.15
On December 10, 1976, petitioner filed an application for
registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land covered The overlapping was confirmed by LRA Director Felino M. Cortez
by Plan PSU-129514, which was granted on February 23, 1989 by in his 2nd Supplementary Report dated August 5, 1996, which was
the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134, acting as a land registration submitted to the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134.16 The report,
which contains a recommendation that petitioner be ordered to registration, by segregating therefrom the portion of Lot 5, PSU-
cause the amendment of Plan PSU-129514 in view of Bracewell’s 180598 also decided in Land Reg. Case No. N-4328. The
claims, reads as follows: approved amended plan and the corresponding certified technical
descriptions shall forthwith be submitted to the Honorable Court for
COMES NOW the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and to the its approval to enable us to comply with the decision of the Court
Honorable Court respectfully submits this report: dated May 3, 1989 in the instant case.17 (Emphases supplied)

1. LRA records show that a decision was rendered by the The Las Piñas City-RTC Ruling
Honorable Court on February 23, 1989, confirming the title
of the herein applicant [petitioner] over the parcel of land Finding that petitioner obtained Decree No. N-217036 and OCT
covered by plan PSU-129514; No. 0-78 in bad faith, the Las Piñas City-RTC rendered a
Decision18 on July 31, 2003 in favor of Bracewell, who had died
2. Upon updating of plotting on our Municipal Index Sheet, during the pendency of the case and was substituted by Eulalia
thru its tie line, it was found to overlap with plan PSU- Bracewell and his heirs (respondents). Accordingly, it directed the
180598, Lot 5, applied in LRC Record No. N-24916, which LRA to set aside Decree No. N-217036 and OCT No. 0-78, and
was referred to the Lands Management Services, El Bldg., ordered petitioner (a) to cause the amendment of Plan PSU-
Quezon City, for verification and/or correction in our letter 129514 and to segregate therefrom the subject lot, and (b) to pay
dated January 12, 1996 x x x; respondents the sum of ₱100,000.00 as attorney's fees, as well as
the cost of suit.19
3. In reply, the Regional Technical Director, thru the Chief,
Surveys Division, in his letter dated 20 June 1996, x x x, The Las Piñas City-RTC faulted petitioner for deliberately
informed this Authority that after [re-verification] and preventing respondents from participating and objecting to his
research of the plan, they found out that Lot 5, PSU- application for registration when the documentary evidence
180598 applied in LRC Record No. N-24916 is a portion of showed that, as early as 1962, Bracewell had been paying taxes
plan PSU-129514, applied in the instant case; for the subject lot; and that he (Bracewell) was recognized as the
owner thereof in the records of the Bureau of Lands way back in
4. Our records further show that the petition for registration 1965, as well as in the City Assessor's Office.20
of title to real property pertaining to Lot 5, PSU-180598 filed
by the petitioner James Bracewell, Jr. under Land Reg. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated his case on appeal21 before the CA,
Case No. N-4329, LRC Record No. N-24916 has been docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 81075, arguing mainly that the Las
granted by the Honorable Court per his decision dated May Piñas City-RTC had no jurisdiction over a petition for review of a
3, 1989. decree of registration under Section 32 of PD 1529, which should
be filed in the same branch of the court that rendered the decision
WHEREFORE, the foregoing is respectfully submitted to the and ordered the issuance of the decree.22 He likewise raised (a) the
Honorable Court for its information with the recommendation that failure of Bracewell to submit to conciliation proceedings,23as well
the applicant [herein petitioner] in the instant case be ordered to as (b) the commission of forum shopping, considering that the
cause for the amendment of plan PSU-129514, subject of decision granting Bracewell’s application for registration over Lots
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Plan PSU-180598 was still pending resolution of Decree No. N-217036, which was issued as a result of the
before the Court at the time he filed Civil Case No. LP 98-0025.24 judgment rendered by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134.

The CA Ruling The Court’s Ruling

In a Decision25 dated May 23, 2007, the appellate court affirmed the The petition must fail.
assailed judgment of the RTC, finding that respondents were able
to substantiate their claim of actual fraud in the procurement of Under Act No. 49631 (Act 496), or the "Land Registration Act," as
Decree No. N-217036, which is the only ground that may be amended,32 – which was the law in force at the time of the
invoked in a petition for review of a decree of registration under commencement by both parties of their respective registration
Section 32 of PD 1529. It held that, since the petition for review proceedings – jurisdiction over all applications for registration of
was filed within one (1) year from the issuance of the questioned title was conferred upon the Courts of First Instance (CFIs, now
decree, and considering that the subject lot is located in Las Piñas RTCs) of the respective provinces in which the land sought to be
City, the RTC of said city had jurisdiction over the case.26 It further registered is situated.33
declared that: (a) there was no need to submit the case a quo for
conciliation proceedings because the LRA, which is an The land registration laws were updated and codified under PD
instrumentality of the government, had been impleaded; (b) no 1529, which took effect on January 23, 1979,34 and under Section
forum shopping was committed because the petition for review of 1735 thereof, jurisdiction over an application for land registration is
the decree of registration before the Las Piñas City-RTC and the still vested on the CFI (now, RTC) of the province or city where the
application for land registration then pending before the Court land is situated.36
involved different parties and issues; and (c) the award of
attorney’s fees was well within the sound discretion of the RTC.27
Worth noting is the explanation proffered by respondents in their
comment to the instant petition that when petitioner filed his land
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration28 having been denied,29 he registration case in December 1976, jurisdiction over applications
now comes before the Court via the instant petition for review, for registration of property situated in Las Piñas City was vested in
challenging primarily the jurisdiction of the Las Piñas City-RTC the RTC of Makati City in view of the fact that there were no RTC
which set aside and nullified the judgment rendered by the RTC of branches yet in the Las Piñas City at that time.37 Bracewell’s own
Makati City, Branch 134 that had not yet become final and was still application over Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Plan PSU-180598, all
within its exclusive control and discretion because the one (1) year situated in Las Piñas City, was thus granted by the RTC of Makati
period within which the decree of registration issued by the LRA City, Branch 58.38
could be reviewed has not yet elapsed.30
Subsequently, Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129,39 otherwise
The Issue Before the Court known as "The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980," was enacted
and took effect on August 14, 1981,40 authorizing the creation of
The core issue raised for the Court’s resolution is whether or not RTCs in different judicial regions, including the RTC of Las Piñas
the Las Piñas City-RTC has jurisdiction over the petition for review City as part of the National Capital Judicial Region.41 As pointed out
by the court a quo in its Decision dated July 31, 2003, the RTC of
Las Piñas City was established "in or about jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a
1994."42Understandably, in February 1998, Bracewell sought the matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of
review of Decree No. N-217036 before the Las Piñas City-RTC, jurisdiction,48petitioner cannot now rely on the Joson
considering that the lot subject of this case is situated in Las Piñas pronouncement to advance its theory.
City.
Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the review of a decree of
Petitioner maintains that the petition for review should have been registration falls within the jurisdiction of and, hence, should be filed
filed with the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134, which rendered the in the "proper Court of First Instance," viz.:
assailed decision and ordered the issuance of Decree No. N-
217036, citing the 1964 case of Amando Joson, et al. v. Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser
Busuego43 (Joson) among others. In said case, Spouses Amando for value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or
1âwphi1

Joson and Victoria Balmeo (Sps. Joson) filed a petition to set aside revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any
the decree of registration issued in favor of Teodora Busuego person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any
(Busuego) on the ground that the latter misrepresented herself to court for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of any
be the sole owner of the lot when in truth, the Sps. Joson were person, including the government and the branches thereof,
owners of one-half thereof, having purchased the same from deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such
Busuego’s mother.44 The court a quo therein dismissed the petition adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file
for the reason that since its jurisdiction as a cadastral court was in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and
special and limited, it had no authority to pass upon the issues review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and
raised. Disagreeing, the Court held that, as long as the final decree after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no
has not been issued and the period of one (1) year within which it case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an
may be reviewed has not elapsed, the decision remains under the innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest
control and sound discretion of the court rendering the decree, therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase
which court after hearing, may even set aside said decision or "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in
decree and adjudicate the land to another.45 this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee,
mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.
To be clear, the only issue in Joson was which court should take
cognizance of the nullification of the decree, i.e., the cadastral court Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of
that had issued the decree, or the competent CFI in the exercise registration and the certificate of title issued shall become
of its general jurisdiction.46 It should be pointed out, however, that incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of
with the passage of PD 1529, the distinction between the general registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for
jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction conferred damages against the applicant or any other persons responsible
upon it as a cadastral court was eliminated. RTCs now have the for the fraud. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
power to hear and determine all questions, even contentious and
substantial ones, arising from applications for original registration Since the LRA’s issuance of a decree of registration only proceeds
of titles to lands and petitions filed after such from the land registration court’s directive, a petition taken under
registration.47 Accordingly, and considering further that the matter Section 32 of PD 1529 is effectively a review of the land registration
of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general court’s ruling. As such, case law instructs that for "as long as a final
decree has not been entered by the [LRA] and the period of one (given that RTCs do retain jurisdiction over review of registration
(1) year has not elapsed from the date of entry of such decree, the decree cases pursuant to Section 32 of PD 1529), the Court,
title is not finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration cognizant of the peculiarity of the situation, holds that the Las Piñas
proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion City-RTC has the authority over the petition for the review of
of the court rendering it."49 Decree No. N-217036 filed in this case. Indeed, the filing of the
petition for review before the Las Piñas City-RTC was only but a
While it is indeed undisputed that it was the RTC of Makati City, rectificatory implementation of the rules of procedure then-existing,
Branch 134 which rendered the decision directing the LRA to issue which was temporarily set back only because of past exigencies.
Decree No. N-217036, and should, applying the general rule as In light of the circumstances now prevailing, the Court perceives
above-stated, be the same court before which a petition for the no compelling reason to deviate from applying the rightful
review of Decree No. N-217036 is filed, the Court must consider procedure. After all, venue is only a matter of procedure50 and,
the circumstantial milieu in this case that, in the interest of orderly hence, should succumb to the greater interests of the orderly
procedure, warrants the filing of the said petition before the Las administration of justice.51
Piñas City-RTC.
Anent the other ancillary issues raised by petitioner on forum
Particularly, the Court refers to the fact that the application for shopping, submission to conciliation proceedings, and award of
original registration in this case was only filed before the RTC of attorney's fees, suffice it to say that the same have been
Makati City, Branch 134 because, during that time, i.e., December adequately discussed by the appellate court and, hence, need no
1976, Las Piñas City had no RTC. Barring this situation, the further elucidation.
aforesaid application should not have been filed before the RTC of
Makati City, Branch 134 pursuant to the rules on venue prevailing Finally, on the matter of petitioner's objections against the trial
at that time. Under Section 2, Rule 4 of the 1964 Revised Rules of judge's "unusual interest" in the case, the Court concurs with the
Court, which took effect on January 1, 1964, the proper venue for CA in saying that such tirades are not helpful to his cause. Besides,
real actions, such as an application for original registration, lies with as pointed out in the Decision dated July 31, 2003 of the RTC of
the CFI of the province where the property is situated, viz.: Las Piñas City, Branch 275, petitioner already had his chance to
disqualify the trial judge from further hearing the case, but the
Sec. 2. Venue in Courts of First Instance.— (a) Real actions. — appellate court dismissed his petition in CA G.R. SP No. 74187 for
Actions affecting title to, or for recovery of possession, or for lack of merit.52
partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real
property, shall be commenced and tried in the province where the WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May
property or any part thereof lies. 23, 2007 and the Resolution dated August 14, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 81075 are hereby AFFIRMED.
As the land subject of this case is undeniably situated in Las Piñas
City, the application for its original registration should have been SO ORDERED.
filed before the Las Piñas City-RTC were it not for the fact that the
said court had yet to be created at the time the application was ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
filed. Be that as it may, and considering further that the Associate Justice
complication at hand is actually one of venue and not of jurisdiction
WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MARIANO C. DEL
ARTURO D. BRION
CASTILLO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO