SPS.

CLOMA v CA
GR No. 100153 August 2, 1994

Sec 75 PD 1529 Application for new certificate upon the expiration of redemption period, the
purchaser may petition the court for the entry of a new certificate to him. Sec. 108 of the same decree
state that in amendment and alteration of certificates, the court may hear and determine the petition
after the notice to all parties interested, and may order the entry or cancellation of new certificate.

Sec. 2 PD 1529 CFI or RTC has the power to hear and determine all questions arising upon the
original registration application or petitions.

PD1529 abolished the difference between the general jurisdiction of regular court and limited
jurisdiction of registration court.

Facts:

Subject property herein is the 2 parcels of land located at Buendia Extension, San Jose, Pasay
City, Metro Manila, registered in the name of spouses Tomas Cloma and Victoria Cloma under TCT
17138 and 171139.

The subject properties were listed as delinquent properties because realty taxes of the said properties
from 1983 to 1985 were not paid, then City Treasurer informed spouses Cloma about it on October
21, 1985, and that it was scheduled to be sold by public auction on November 27, 1985.
On November 28, 1985, City Treasurer informed spouses Cloma that the properties were sold in the
public auction and Mariano Nocom was the highest bidder and that they have until November 26,
1986 to redeem the said lots. However, spouses Cloma failed to redeem the said lots, thus on July
27, 1989, City Treasurer executed final deed of sale in favor of Nocom. Then on October 5, 1989,
Nocom filed a petition before the RTC seeking the cancellation of TCTs of spouses Cloma and
issuance of new certificate of title in his name free from liens and encumbrances.

Spouses Cloma filed their answer, alleging the irregularities in the said auction held and that they did
not receive any notice of public auction and that they have not heard of the existence of the
newspaper Metropolitan Mail, and they further alleged that City Treasurer has no authority to conduct
the said sale since it is the City Assessor who has empowered by law.

Lower court ruled in favor of Nocom, and ordered the cancellation of TCTs in the name of spouses
Cloma and issue new title in his name. CA affirmed the decision of RTC.

Issue:
WON the RTC sitting as land registration court has jurisdiction to cancel the certificate of titles of
petitioners and issue new one in favor of respondent.
Ruling:

YES.

Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the said petition. Sec 75 of PD 1529 state that application
for new certificate upon the expiration of redemption period, the purchaser may petition the court for
the entry of a new certificate to him. And sec. 108 of the same decree state that in amendment and
alteration of certificates, the court may hear and determine the petition after the notice to all parties
interested, and may order the entry or cancellation of new certificate. And clearly under Sec. 2 of
same decree, CFI or RTC has the power to hear and determine all questions arising upon the original
registration application or petitions. Hence, PD1529 abolished the difference between the general
jurisdiction of regular court and limited jurisdiction of registration court.

In addition, spouses Cloma failed to question the jurisdiction of the lower court in their answer, they
only questioned such when they submit the case to appeal in SC and only after the adverse
judgment. Tantamount to voluntary submitting to the jurisdiction of RTC, since they freely participated
in all the hearing of the case and adduced their own evidence