Oppen vs Compas FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set asid aside e the the Deci Decisi sion on and and the the Resol esolut utio ion n of the the Cour Courtt of Ap Appe peal als s whic which h denied the petition for certiorari of petitioner Ernesto Oppen, Inc. (EOI, assailing Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC, in a !and Registration Case. The case involves two (" parcels of land and previousl# registered in the na$e of %hilippine &erchant &arine 'chool Inc. (%&&'I. The said properties were were levied upon and the writ of eecution issued )# the &eTC. The &eTC*decision &eTC*decision approved the co$pro$ise co$pro$ise agree$ent )etween &anufacturers +uilding, Inc. (&+I and %&&'I. Thereafter, the otice of !ev# in favor of &+I was annotated at the )ack of the " TCTs. %ursuant to the writ of eecution issued )# the &eTC, &eTC, EOI annotated its lien on one of the TCTs. A certi-cate of sale was issued in its favor in /01, and entered in the TCT in /0/. The said propert# was later sold in a pu)lic auction where EOI was the highest )idder and the 2inal Deed of 'ale was issued after the lapse of the rede$ption period. 'u)se3uentl#, EOI -led for the cancellation of %&&'I4s title and the issuance of a new one under EOI4s na$e. %ursuant to a writ of eecution, a TCT in the na$e of EOI was issued in "556. Meanwhile, Meanwhile, in "55", an alias writ of eecution was issued )# the &eTC &eTC in connection with the case )etween %&&'I and &+I. The properties covered were sold in a pu)lic auction in which respondent Al)erto Co$pas (Co$pas was the winning )idder and had the sale annotated on )oth titles on the sa$e #ear. The 2inal Deed of 'ale was issued to Co$pas after %&&'I failed to redee$ the said properties during the rede$ption period which epired in "556. In the #ear "557, Co$pas -led a petition for the cancellation of the TCT TCTs s and for the issuance of new titles in his na$e )efore the RTC. 8pon learning that one of the TCTs had )een cancelled and a new TCT had )een issued in its place under EOI4s na$e, Co$pas -led his &otion to Ad$it A$ended %etition. EOI -led -rst $otion to dis$iss due to failure to state cause of action and after denial, a second $otion to dis$iss arguing that under 'ection 50 of %.D. o. 7"/, the court with 9urisdiction was the court where the original registration was -led and docketed.
The RTC issued an order den#ing EOI4s second $otion to dis$iss on the ground that 'ection 50 of %.D. o. 7"/ was inapplica)le and that it was vested with 9urisdiction under 'ection " thereof. EOI sought the reconsideration )ut was denied. EOI -led a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals )ut the the decision of the RTC was sustained )# the Court of Appeals. EOI $oved for reconsideration )ut was still denied. Thus, the petition.
ISSUE: :hether or not the RTC has 9urisdiction over the su)9ect $atter RULING: It is )asic in law that the 9urisdiction of courts is conferred )# law. The 9urisdiction of regional trial courts in land registration cases is conferred )# 'ection " of %.D. o. 7"/. It epressl# provides; 'ection ". ature of registration proceedings< 9urisdiction of courts. =udicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the %hilippines shall )e in re$ and shall )e )ased on the generall# accepted principles underl#ing the Torrens s#ste$. Courts of 2irst Instance (RTC shall have eclusive 9urisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including i$prove$ents and interests therein, and over all petitions -led after original registration of title, with power to hear and deter$ine all 3uestions arising upon such applications or petitions. EOI cannot insist that the action should have )een -led with the RTC where the original registration was -led and issued considering that the case involved controversial issues. Even granting that 'ection 50 of %.D. o. 7"/ was applica)le, EOI4s second $otion to dis$iss should still )e denied. >ranting it to )e so, the second $otion to dis$iss was rightfull# denied as EOI waived the ground of i$proper venue after it had -led its -rst $otion to dis$iss pursuant to the O$ni)us &otion Rule. 'ection 0 of Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a $otion attacking a pleading, order, 9udg$ent or proceeding shall include all o)9ections then availa)le, and all o)9ections not so included shall )e dee$ed waived. 'ection 0, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court de-nes an o$ni)us $otion as a $otion attacking a pleading, 9udg$ent or proceeding. A $otion to dis$iss is an o$ni)us $otion )ecause it attacks a pleading that is the
co$plaint. 2or this reason, a $otion to dis$iss, like an# other o$ni)us $otion, $ust raise and include all o)9ections availa)le at the ti$e of the -ling of the $otion )ecause under 'ection 0, ?all o)9ections not so included shall )e dee$ed waived.? As inferred fro$ the provision, onl# the following defenses 8nder 'ection , Rule /, are ecepted fro$ its application; @a lack of 9urisdiction over the su)9ect $atter< @) there is another action pending )etween the sa$e parties for the sa$e cause (litis pendentia< @c the action is )arred )# prior 9udg$ent (res 9udicata< and @d the action is )arred )# the statute of li$itations or prescription. In the case at )ench, the petitioners raised the ground of defective veri-cation and certi-cation of foru$ shopping onl# when the# -led their second $otion to dis$iss, despite the fact that this ground was eistent and availa)le at the ti$e of the -ling of their -rst $otion to dis$iss. A)sent an# 9usti-a)le reason to eplain this fatal o$ission, the ground of defective veri-cation and certi-cation of foru$ shopping was dee$ed waived and could no longer )e 3uestioned )# the petitioners in their second $otion to dis$iss.
:BERE2ORE, the petition is DENIED.
