Scribd
Upload
106 views2 pages

13, Ching Versus CA

An action was brought by Pedro Asedillo 13 years after the death of Ching Leng to recover a parcel of land through reconveyance and cancellation of Ching Leng's title. The court ruled the action was in personam and required jurisdiction over the person of Ching Leng. As Ching Leng had been deceased for 13 years, the court did not have jurisdiction over his person, and service of summons by publication did not bind his estate. Therefore, the default judgment in favor of Asedillo was null and void.

Uploaded by

Mishal Oisin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
106 views2 pages

13, Ching Versus CA

An action was brought by Pedro Asedillo 13 years after the death of Ching Leng to recover a parcel of land through reconveyance and cancellation of Ching Leng's title. The court ruled the action was in personam and required jurisdiction over the person of Ching Leng. As Ching Leng had been deceased for 13 years, the court did not have jurisdiction over his person, and service of summons by publication did not bind his estate. Therefore, the default judgment in favor of Asedillo was null and void.

Uploaded by

Mishal Oisin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

a. ALFREDO CHING, petitioner vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO ASEDILLO,


respondents G.R. No. 59731 11 January 1990

FACTS:
Spouses Maximo Nofuente and Dominga Lumandan registered a parcel of land situated at Sitio
of Kay-Biga Barrio of San Dionisio, Municipality of Paranaque, Province of Rizal. In August
1960, 5/6 portion of the property was reconveyed by the spouses to Francisco, Regina,
Perfecto, Constancio and Matilde all surnamed Nofuente.

By virtue of a sale to Ching Leng the reconveyance with the Nofuentes was cancelled. On
October 19, 1965, Ching Leng died. His legitimate son Alfredo Ching filed with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal (a petition for administration of the estate of deceased Ching Leng. Notice of
hearing on the petition was duly published. No oppositors appeared at the hearing,
consequently after presentation of evidence petitioner Alfredo Ching was appointed
administrator of Ching Leng's estate.

13 years after Ching Leng's death, a suit against him was commenced by private respondent
Pedro Asedillo for reconveyance of the property and it was given to Ching Leng's last known
address is No. 44 Libertad Street, Pasay City (not No. 441 Libertad Street, Pasay City, as
alleged in private respondent's complaint). An amended complaint was filed by private
respondent against Ching Leng and/or Estate of Ching Leng alleging "That on account of the
fact that the defendant has been residing abroad up to the present, and it is not known whether
the defendant is still alive or dead, he or his estate may be served by summons and other
processes only by publication; "Summons by publication to Ching Leng or his estate was
directed by the trial court. Despite the lapse of the sixty (60) day period within which to answer,
defendant failed to file a responsive pleading and on motion of counsel for the private
respondent, the court, allowed the presentation of evidence exparte. A judgment by default was
rendered in favor of the plaintiff declaring Pedro Asedillo to be the true and absolute owner of
the property covered.

ISSUES:
Whether or not an action for reconveyance of property and cancellation of title is in personam,
and if so, would a dead man and/or his estate be bound by service of summons and decision by
publication.

RULING:
Yes.

An action to redeem, or to recover title to or possession of, real property is not an action in rem
or an action against the whole world, like a land registration proceeding or the probate of a will;
it is an action in personam, so much so that a judgment therein is binding only upon the parties
properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard.
Actions in personam and actions in rem differ in that the former are directed against specific
persons and seek personal judgments, while the latter are directed against the thing or property
or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world.

An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a
particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing. Private respondent's
action for reconveyance and cancellation of title being in personam, the judgment in question is
null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the deceased defendant Ching Leng.

Verily, the action was commenced thirteen (13) years after the latter's death.The decision of the
lower court insofar as the deceased is concerned, is void for lack of jurisdiction over his person.
He was not, and he could not have been validly served with summons. He had no more civil
personality. His juridical personality, that is fitness to be subject of legal relations, was lost
through death (Arts. 37 and 42 Civil Code).

The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question
as to its legality. Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of
waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casa," to avoid the possibility of
losing his land A Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land
referred to therein (Section 49, Act 496). A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are
regularly issued and that they are valid. A Torrens title is incontrovertible against any
"information possessoria" or title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the title

You might also like