29. Mendoza Vs. Ca.docx

29. Generoso MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, Daniel Gole CRUZ and Dolores MENDOZA G.R. No. L-36637 | 14 July 1978

Generoso insists that the court could not legally order the registration of the land in the names of the vendees (Sps. Cruz) who were neither (a) the applicants nor (b) the oppositors in the registration case below. He is wrong.

DOCTRINE: 1) Section 29 of the Land Registration Act authorizes the registration of land (subject of a registration proceeding) in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the land was conveyed during the time between the filing of the application for registration and issuance of the decree of title.



2) The law does not require that the application for registration be the “buyer” or the “person to whom the property has been conveyed” as the applicant. Neither does it require that the “buyer” or the “person to whom the property has been conveyed” be a party to the case. 3) A decree of registration may be set aside only on the ground of fraud in obtaining the same, not on the ground of failure of the vendee to pay the purchase price. FACTS 1. Generoso Mendoza filed with the CFI an application for the registration of 2 parcels of land in Bulacan.  After a notice was issued, published, posted and served, and nobody appeared to oppose, the court ordered a general default and allowed the applicant to present his evidence ex parte. 2. From the evidence presented, it was proven that Generoso and his wife (Mendozas) were the owners of the parcels of land. They sold the same, during the pendency of the application for registration before the CFI, to the Spouses Cruz, subject to the vendor’s (Mendozas’) usufructuary rights.  The Deed of Sale was presented as Exhibit I.  The registration court ordered the registration of the 2 parcels of land in the names of the vendees (Sps. Cruz).  After confirmation of the title to the land and registration of the same in the names of Sps. Cruz, an OCT was issued to them. 4. After 3 years, Generoso filed an urgent petition for reconsideration to cancel the said OCT, because the vendees (Sps. Cruz) had failed to pay the purchase price of the lands.  The registration court ordered the cancellation of the OCT, and directed the registration of the lands in the names of the Mendozas.  The CA set aside the order of the registration court. ISSUE 1) W/N the registration of land in the names of the vendees is valid even though they were not parties in the original registration proceedings – YES. 2) W/N the registration proceedings in this case may be set aside on the ground that the vendees failed to pay the purchase price – NO. HELD 1) Yes. The SC upheld CA’s decision and ruled in favor of Sps. Cruz.



Sec. 29 of the Land Registration Act (LRA) authorizes the registration of the land (subject matter of a registration proceeding) in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the land has been conveyed by an instrument executed during the interval of time between the filing of the application for registration and the issuance of the decree of title. The only requirements are: (1) That the instrument (evidencing that the land has been sold or encumbered) be presented to the court by the interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application; and (2) That prior notice be given to the parties to the case.

In this case, the requirements have been complied with. o First requirement (Presentaion of Instrument): The Deed of Sale was presented in court by Generoso himself and testified that he did sell the land to Sps. Cruz. He even file a motion for the issuance of the decree of confirmation of title. o Second requirement (Prior Notice): Culled from the facts, an order of general default had been issued prior to the presentation of the deed of sale by Generoso, since nobody filed an opposition to the application for registration. Thus, the only person who should have been entitled to a notice from the court was Generoso himself, as the only party with a legal standing in the proceedings.  The law does not require that the application for registration be amended by substituting the “buyer” or the “person to whom the property has been conveyed” for the applicant. Neither does it require that the “buyer” or the “person to whom the property has been conveyed” be a party to the case. He may be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings (As long as the 2 requirements above are present).

2) No. What the applicant (or Generoso here) actually invokes in is not fraud in obtaining the decree of registration but the alleged failure of the vendeesrespondents to pay the purchase price of the landholdings. 

Breach of contract is not a ground for a petition for a review. And the registration court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether or not the deed of sale, Exh. “1”, should be rescinded for the alleged failure of the vendees to pay the purchase price. The issue on the breach of contract has to be litigated in the ordinary court.