NICOMEDES J.

LOZADA, Petitioner,
vs.
EULALIA BRACEWELL, EDDIE BRACEWELL, ESTELLITA BRACEWELL, JAMES
BRACEWELL, JOHN BRACEWELL, EDWIN BRACEWELL, ERIC BRACEWELL,
and HEIRS OF GEORGE BRACEWELL,Respondents.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated May 23,
2007 and the Resolution3 dated August 14, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CV No. 81075, which affirmed the Decision4 dated July 31, 2003 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Las Pifias City, Branch 275 in Civil Case No. LP 98-0025,
directing the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to set aside Decree of Registration
No. N-217036 (Decree No. N-217036) and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-
78 in the name of petitioner Nicomedes J. Lozada (petitioner), and ordering the
latter to cause the amendment of Plan PSU-129514 as well as segregate therefrom
Lot 5 of Plan PSU-180598.

The Facts

On December 10, 1976, petitioner filed an application for registration and

confirmation of title over a parcel of land covered by Plan PSU-129514, which was
granted on February 23, 1989 by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134, acting as a
land registration court.5 Consequently, on July 10, 1997, the LRA issued Decree No.
N-217036 in the name of petitioner, who later obtained OCT No. 0-78 covering the
said parcel of land.6

On February 6, 1998, within a year from the issuance of the aforementioned decree,
James Bracewell, Jr. (Bracewell) filed a petition for review of a decree of registration
under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529,7 otherwise known as the
"Property Registration Decree," before the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 275 (Las
Piñas City-RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. LP 98-0025,8 claiming that a portion of
Plan PSU-129514, consisting of 3,097 square meters identified as Lot 5 of Plan PSU-
180598 (subject lot) – of which he is the absolute owner and possessor – is
fraudulently included in Decree No. N-217036.9 He allegedly filed on September 19,
1963 an application for registration and confirmation of the subject lot, as well as of
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Plan PSU-180598, situated in Las Piñas City, which was
granted by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 58, on May 3, 1989.10 He further averred
that petitioner deliberately concealed the fact that he (Bracewell) is one of the
adjoining owners, and left him totally ignorant of the registration proceedings
involving the lots covered by Plan PSU-129514.11 Instead of impleading him,
petitioner listed Bracewell’s grandmother, Maria Cailles, as an adjoining owner,
although she had already died by that time.12

In his answer13 to the foregoing allegations, petitioner called Bracewell a mere

interloper with respect to the subject lot, which the Bureau of Lands had long
declared to be part and parcel of Plan PSU-129514.14 He argued that his Plan PSU-
129514 was approved way back in 1951 whereas Bracewell’s Plan PSU-180598 was
surveyed only in 1960, and stated that the latter plan, in fact, contained a footnote
that a portion known as Lot 5, i.e., the subject lot, is a portion of the parcel of land
covered by Plan PSU-129514.15
The overlapping was confirmed by LRA Director Felino M. Cortez in his 2nd
Supplementary Report dated August 5, 1996, which was submitted to the RTC of
Makati City, Branch 134.16 The report, which contains a recommendation that
petitioner be ordered to cause the amendment of Plan PSU-129514 in view of
Bracewell’s claims, reads as follows:

COMES NOW the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and to the Honorable Court
respectfully submits this report:

1. LRA records show that a decision was rendered by the Honorable Court on
February 23, 1989, confirming the title of the herein applicant [petitioner]
over the parcel of land covered by plan PSU-129514;

2. Upon updating of plotting on our Municipal Index Sheet, thru its tie line, it
was found to overlap with plan PSU-180598, Lot 5, applied in LRC Record No.
N-24916, which was referred to the Lands Management Services, El Bldg.,
Quezon City, for verification and/or correction in our letter dated January 12,
1996 x x x;

3. In reply, the Regional Technical Director, thru the Chief, Surveys Division,
in his letter dated 20 June 1996, x x x, informed this Authority that after [re-
verification] and research of the plan, they found out that Lot 5, PSU-180598
applied in LRC Record No. N-24916 is a portion of plan PSU-129514, applied
in the instant case;

4. Our records further show that the petition for registration of title to real
property pertaining to Lot 5, PSU-180598 filed by the petitioner James
Bracewell, Jr. under Land Reg. Case No. N-4329, LRC Record No. N-24916
has been granted by the Honorable Court per his decision dated May 3, 1989.

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 Decision18 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 appeal21 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,23as well as (b) the commission of forum shopping,
considering that the decision granting Bracewell’s 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 Decision25 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 jurisdiction over the
case.26 It further declared that: (a) there was no need to submit the case a quo for
conciliation proceedings because the LRA, which is an instrumentality of the
government, had been impleaded; (b) no forum shopping was committed because
the petition for review of the decree of registration before the Las Piñas City-RTC
and the application for land registration then pending before the Court involved
different parties and issues; and (c) the award of attorney’s fees was well within the
sound discretion of the RTC.27

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration28 having been denied,29 he now comes before
the Court via the instant petition for review, challenging primarily the jurisdiction of
the Las Piñas City-RTC which set aside and nullified the judgment rendered by the
RTC of Makati City, Branch 134 that had not yet become final and was still within its
exclusive control and discretion because the one (1) year period within which the
decree of registration issued by the LRA could be reviewed has not yet elapsed.30

The Issue Before the Court

The core issue raised for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the Las Piñas City-
RTC has jurisdiction over the petition for review of Decree No. N-217036, which was
issued as a result of the judgment rendered by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition must fail.

Under Act No. 49631 (Act 496), or the "Land Registration Act," as amended,32 – which
was the law in force at the time of the commencement by both parties of their
respective registration proceedings – jurisdiction over all applications for registration
of title was conferred upon the Courts of First Instance (CFIs, now RTCs) of the
respective provinces in which the land sought to be registered is situated.33
The land registration laws were updated and codified under PD 1529, which took
effect on January 23, 1979,34 and under Section 1735 thereof, jurisdiction over an
application for land registration is still vested on the CFI (now, RTC) of the province
or city where the land is situated.36

Worth noting is the explanation proffered by respondents in their comment to the

instant petition that when petitioner filed his land registration case in December
1976, jurisdiction over applications for registration of property situated in Las Piñas
City was vested in the RTC of Makati City in view of the fact that there were no RTC
branches yet in the Las Piñas City at that time.37 Bracewell’s own application over
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Plan PSU-180598, all situated in Las Piñas City, was thus
granted by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 58.38

Subsequently, Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129,39 otherwise known as "The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980," was enacted and took effect on August 14,