Rico v Rufon

Rico is a lawyer, served as counsel for Mr. Ko and Ms. Suplido in a civil case over a ownership of a property which
was under the name of Spouses Akol, the opposing party therein. Rico won the case and had the RTC of BACOLOD
annotate a notice of embargo over the TCT of the subject property.

Now the Spouses Akol filed for the cancellation of the notice of embargo with the RTC of PASIG (not BACOLOD
where the annotation of the notice of embargo was ordered). Judge Rufon of RTC-Pasig granted said petition. Atty
Ricos clients were not personally notified of this proceeding/hearing. Judge Rufon merely required posting in three
(3) conspicuous public places for three weeks prior to the scheduled hearing, a notice to the whole world.

So nipalag si atty Rico, dapat dili daw notice to the whole world, it should have been a personal notice, thus making
the hearing/proceeding void.

ISSUE: WON the petition for the cancellation of the notice of embargo annotated over the TCT of subject property
is an action to quiet title and/or remove cloud therefrom

HELD:

The petition for the cancellation of notice of embargo is an action to quiet title and/or remove cloud therefrom,
under Articles 476, 478 and 481 of the Civil Code

The Court said:

The petition challenged the notice of embargo issued in Civil Case No. 32482 and prayed that the
annotations on the TCTs be cancelled. This would nullify the rights of the adverse parties, specially the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 32482

Why? All the requisites are present in this case: (this is not explained/found in the case, I only applied Atty Suarezs
method of determining whether or not said action is an action to quiet title/remove cloud)

1. There is a proceeding = the hearing on the cancellation of the notice of embargo

2. That said proceeding is APPARENTLY valid or effective = The RTC-Pasig indeed ordered the cancellation of
the notice of embargo. (Atty Suarez: how can you not say that an RTCs order/judgment is not effective? Of
course it is deemed effective, or is apparently effective, it was issued by THE RTC!)
3. But in truth and in fact it is not valid, voidable, ineffective, void, unenforceable, or extinguished or barred
by extinctive prescription = the proceeding is void in this case because Ricos clients were not PERSONALLY
notified of said proceeding, as what is required for actions in personam. Thus they were deprived of the
opportunity to be heard during said hearing.

The Court said:

The petition for cancellation of notice of embargo is a real action as it seeks the recovery of real
property; but it is also an action in personam because it is directed only against the plaintiffs in
Civil Case No. 32482.

Thus, there is a need for personal service upon the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 32482 who would
be adversely affected by the cancellation of the notice of embargo on the TCTs.

Judge Rufon, however, merely required posting in three (3) conspicuous public places for three
weeks prior to the scheduled hearing. This is not the notice required in an action in personam

4. It is prejudicial to the title = If held to be valid, the cancellation of the notice of embargo would nullify the
rights of atty Ricos clients over the subject property.