EDITHA PADLAN v.

ELENITA DINGLASAN and

FELICISIMO DINGLASAN
G.R. No. 180321 20 March 2013

FACTS:

The Story
Elenita Dinglasan (Elenita) owned an 82, 972 sqm lot. The lot is
identified as Lot 625 of the Limay Cadastre, covered by TCT
No. T-105602. Her mother, Lilia, had a conversation with
Maura Passion (Maura), whom Lilia thought was a real estate
agent. Lilia borrowed Elenita’s copy of the lot’s certificate of
title and gave it to Maura.
Maura then subdivided Lot 625 into several parcels of land,
under the name of Elenita and her husband Felicisimo. Maura
sold the lots to different buyers through fake deeds of sale
bearing forged signatures of Elenita and Felicisimo. One buyer
was Lorna Ong. She bought Lot 625 K and had a certificate of
title issued in her name. After a few months, she sold Lot 625 K
to Editha Padlan (Editha) for PHP 4,000. A certificate of title
was issued to Editha.
Elenita heard what happened. Thus, she demanded Editha to
return Lot 625 K to her. Editha refused, so Elenita filed a
complaint for cancellation of the transfer certificate of title
before the Balanga Regional Trial Court (RTC).

Regional Trial Court

A summons was sent to Editha. Her mother received it. Elenita
moved to declare Editha in default and to be allowed to present
evidence ex-parte. Editha opposed and moved to have the case
dismissed. She argued that the court did not gain jurisdiction
over her. She was in Japan, thus the summons was served by
substituted service.
The RTC denied Editha’s motion. She was declared in default.
However, the RTC ruled that she was a buyer in good faith.

Court of Appeals
On 29 June 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s
decision. The certificates of title issued to Lorna Ong and Editha
were canceled; the certificate of title issued to Elenita was
revived. The Court of Appeals said that Lot 625 K was bought
in bad faith. Lorna bought a 5000 sqm lot for PHP 4,000 and
sold it after a few months. That should have warned Editha that
something was wrong.
Editha moved for reconsideration. She argued that the court did
not acquire jurisdiction over her person and that the complaint
lacks merit.
The Court of Appeals denied her motion. Editha was silent and
never sought any remedy until the Court of Appeals gave its
decision.

ISSUE
Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject
matter

ARGUMENTS
Editha Padlan
The rule in Tijam does not apply here. The petitioner in Tijam
actively participated in the case. However, Editha did not
participate in the trial of her case because she was declared in
default.
The court did not acquire jurisdiction over Editha. The summons
was not validly served to her. According to Rule 14 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure, a summons for someone residing outside the
Philippines may be served by personal service or publication in
a newspaper of general circulation. Editha lived in Japan; her
mother received the summons.
As to Lot 625 K, the court did not acquire jurisdiction because
the lot was bought for PHP 4,000.

Elenita Dinglasan
The Court of Appeals was correct in ordering the cancellation of
Lorna’s and Editha’s certificates of title.

RULING:
No, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The complaint was filed in 1999. At that time, Republic Act
7691 (RA 7691) was in effect. It expanded the jurisdiction of
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MTC).
Under RA 7691, the MTC has jurisdiction overall civil actions
which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein where the assessed value of the property or
interest therein does not exceed PHP 20,000 or PHP 50, 000 in
Metro Manila.
Here, Lot 625 K was valued at PHP 4,000. The RTC had no
jurisdiction, thus its decision was void.