RODOLFO V. FRANCISCO vs. EMILIANA M. ROJAS, and the legitimate heirs of JOSE A. ROJAS, namely: JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS II, ROLANDO M. ROJAS, JOSE M. ROJAS, JR., CARMELITA ROJAS-JOSE, VICTOR M. ROJAS, and LOURDES M. ROJAS, all represented by JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS II, G.R. No. 167120, April 23, 2014
“x x x.
Notably, a Manifestation and/or Compliance28 was filed by the Franciscos on November 19, 1998 before the RTC Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 69. They alleged that despite service of notice of the Manifestation with Motion dated July 10, 1998 to the registered owners appearing on TCT No. M-2095, said owners, including Jose Rojas whose envelope was stamped "RETURN TO SENDER," did not file any comment or opposition. The Franciscos stated that TCT M-2095 does not bear the complete address of the registered owners, so they gathered their respective addresses from the available and accessible public records. This reasoning does not suffice. In Divina v. Court of Appeals,29 We stressed:
Section 15 of P.D. 1529 is explicit in requiring that in the application for registration of land titles, the application "shall also state the full names and addresses of all occupants of the land and those of the adjoining owners if known, and if not known, it shall state the extent of the search made to find them." As early as Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 97 SCRA 22 [1980] we emphasized that a mere statement of the lack of knowledge of the names of the occupants and adjoining owners is not sufficient but "what search has been made to find them is necessary." x x x30
The "appropriate proceeding" referred to in Guido is a case where the Franciscos must present specific acts of ownership to substantiate their claim that they are bona fide occupants of Lots 1-4 of Psu-04-001463 (now Lots 6B-6E of Psd-04-083681) while, at the same time, respondents are accorded due process of law by availing of the opportunity to oppose and refute the representations made by the Franciscos. Whatever the "appropriate proceeding" may be, the decisive factor is that the same should be a proceeding in personam wherein personal service of summons and copy of the complaint/petition is necessary.
X x x.”
