This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Besides, the CA was correct in holding that a land registration case, like the one at bar, is a proceeding in rem. This Court has already ruled that in land registration proceedings, being in rem, there is no necessity to give personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land sought to be registered in order to vest the courts with power and authority over the res.[15] Moreover, since no issue was raised as to Antonia Victorino's compliance with the prerequisites of notice and publication, she is deemed to have followed such requirements. As a consequence, petitioner is deemed sufficiently notified of the hearing of Antonia's application. Hence, she cannot claim that she is denied due process. | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The title, once registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take notice. No one can plead ignorance of the registration.22 Moreover, actual notice to every person affected or may be affected by the titling is not necessary. It is well settled 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.[23] | |||||