G.R. No. 179155 - NICOMEDES J. LOZADA, VS. EULALIA BRACEWELL, EDDIE BRACEWELL, ESTELLITA BRACEWELL, JAMES BRACEWELL, JOHN BRACEWELL, EDWIN BRACEWELL, ERIC BRACEWELL, AND HEIRS OF GEORGE BRACEWELL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the foregoing is respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court for its information with the recommendation that the applicant [herein petitioner] in the instant case be ordered to cause for the amendment of plan PSU-129514, subject of registration, by segregating therefrom the portion of Lot 5, PSU-180598 also decided in Land Reg. Case No. N-4328 . The approved amended plan and the corresponding certified technical descriptions shall forthwith be submitted to the Honorable Court for its approval to enable us to comply with the decision of the Court dated May 3, 1989 in the instant case. [17] (Emphases supplied) The Las Piñas City-RTC Ruling Finding that petitioner obtained Decree No. N-217036 and OCT No. 0-78 in bad faith, the Las Piñas City-RTC rendered a Decision [18] on July 31, 2003 in favor of Bracewell, who had died during the pendency of the case and was substituted by Eulalia Bracewell and his heirs (respondents). Accordingly, it directed the LRA to set aside Decree No. N-217036 and OCT No. 0-78, and ordered petitioner (a) to cause the amendment of Plan PSU-129514 and to segregate therefrom the subject lot, and (b) to pay respondents the sum of ?100,000.00 as attorney's fees, as well as the cost of suit. [19] The Las Piñas City-RTC faulted petitioner for deliberately preventing respondents from participating and objecting to his application for registration when the documentary evidence showed that, as early as 1962, Bracewell had been paying taxes 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 1965, as well as in the City Assessor's Office. [20] Aggrieved, petitioner elevated his case on appeal [21] before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 81075, arguing mainly that the Las Piñas City-RTC had no jurisdiction over a petition for review of a decree of registration under Section 32 of PD 1529, which should be filed in the same branch of the court that rendered the decision and ordered the issuance of the decree. [22] He likewise raised (a) the failure of Bracewell to submit to conciliation proceedings, [23] as well as (b) the commission of forum shopping, considering that the decision granting Bracewells application for registration over Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Plan PSU-180598 was still pending resolution before the Court at the time he filed Civil Case No. LP 98-0025. [24] The CA Ruling In a Decision [25] dated May 23, 2007, the appellate court affirmed the assailed judgment of the RTC, finding that respondents were able to substantiate their claim of actual fraud in the procurement of Decree No. N-217036, which is the only ground that may be invoked in a petition for review of a decree of registration under Section 32 of PD 1529. It held that, since the petition for review was filed within one (1) year from the issuance of the questioned decree, and considering that the subject lot is located in Las Piñas City, the RTC of said city had juris