April 25, 1989
Per Curiam
FACTS
Two (2) adjacent parcels of land located in Almanza, Las Piñas, Metro Manila are covered by three (3) distinct sets of Torrens titles, one of which is TCT No. 20408 issued in the name of Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc., pursuant to Decree No. N-63394 in LRC Cases Nos. 657, 758 and 976, GLRO Record Nos. N-29882, N-33721 and N-43516, respectively.
In 1977, Morris Carpo filed a complaint for "declaration of nullity of Decree No. N-63394 and TCT No. 20408." The complaint alleged that TCT No. 20408 as well as OCT No. 1609 from which it was derived, is a nullity as the CFI of Rizal, Branch VI, was not sitting as a land registration court, but as a court of ordinary jurisdiction.
During the pendency of this case, Petitioners filed a manifestation alleging that the case at bar is closely connected with G.R. No. L-46953, Jose N. Mayuga et. al. v. The Court of Appeals, Macondray Farms, Inc., Realty Sales Enterprise, inc., et. al. and moved for consolidation of the two cases involving as they do the same property. By Resolution of August 29, 1984, this Court denied the motion for consolidation.
ISSUE: WON the case at hand and G.R. No. L-46953 should be consolidated?
NO, the two cases should not be consolidated.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the action filed by Carpo against Realty is in the nature of an action to remove clouds from title to real property. By asserting its own title to the property in question and asking that Carpo's title be declared null and void instead, and by filing the third-party complaint against QCDFC, Realty was similarly asking the court to remove clouds from its own title.
Actions of such nature are governed by Articles 476 to 481, Quieting of Title of the Civil Code and Rule 64, Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies of the Rules of Court.
Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem, nor are they, strictly speaking, in personam, but being against the person in respect of the res, these proceedings are characterized as quasi in rem. (McDaniel v. McElvy, 108 So. 820 [1926].) The judgment in such proceedings is conclusive only between the parties. (Sandejas v. Robles, 81 Phil. 421 [1948]).
The ruling in this case is therefore without any prejudice to this Court's final determination of G.R. No. L-46953 – a case involving the validity of the compromise agreement between the parties in this case.