ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST FOR WORLD EVANGELISM INC VS FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH AND CASept 1963 parties agreed on a Contract of Purchase and Sale of a parcel of land and building and improvements to be paid in 3 installments as followsOn September 30 1963 for 29,350.62September 30, 1964 for 66, 038.90September 30, 1965 for 198, 116.72With a condition that if the respondent would pay before the date stipulated in the 3rd installment a deduction of 25,000 from the purchase price will be givenAnother condition is the automatic rescission of the contract in case of failure to pay on the date and reconveyance of the land to petitioner in return the the later will return the amount paid by the vendee.Also that the land must only be used for church purposes.The respondent failed to pay the second installment even after the extension given. March 1965 the respondent caused to be recorded in RD of Manila a NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM in the TCT.Thus, the petitioner filed in CFI of Manila for the cancellation of the notice, GROUNDS: When the notice was file the respondent already lost the in the said property because of the rescission of the contract due to non payment.Respondent filed an opposition. Upon hearing the petitioner presented evidences but the respondent did not. The lower court suspended the resolution for 15 days instructing the counsel of the respondent to file a civil action in order to thresh out the question involved in ordinary suit. The respondent failed to file such action. The CFI of Manila ruled in favor of the petitioner cancelling the notice of adverse claim. For the first time the respondent upon MR raised the issue of jurisdiction: GROUNDS: CFI acting as Land registration court have limited jurisdiction and cannot decide issues to be litigated in ordinary court.Petitioner filed an action against the respondent in the CFI for rescission of the contract on August 1967 where the court ordered the rescission of the contract on the grounds alleged by the petitioner At first CA ruled in favor of the petitioner but upon appeal AFFIRMED the respondents contention on the jurisdiction of the CFI.Thus, this review on certiorari.SC: The contention that CFI has limited jurisdiction no longer holds.With Sec 2 PD 1529 or Property Registration Decree states that CFI shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, improvements and interest therein and OVER ALL PETITIONS FILED AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE, WITH POWER TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ALL QUESTIONS ARISING UPON SUCH APPLICATIONS OR PETITIONS. On the same note Act 496 Land Registration Act, the CFI sitting as LRC has the authority to conduct a hearing, receive evidence and decide controversial matters in view to determine WON the filed notice of adverse claim is valid SEC 110RULING: Resolution of CA set aside

AVERIA VS CAGUIOATomas Averia refuses to participate in the registration proceedings claiming that the CFI of Lucena acting as a cadastral court had no competence to act upon the said case under sec 112 of Act 496. With the refusal of the petitioner the respondent court held the hearing ex parte and rendered a decision on the basis of the evidences presented by Veronica Padillo the private respondent herein. Thus this action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, arguing that the lower court had no competence to act on the registration sought because of the absence of unanimity among the parties as required by sec 112 of Act 496.SC held although the interpretation of the petitioner is correct, Act 496 was superseded by PD 1529 where sec 2 of the said act eliminated the distinction between general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and limited jurisdiction conferred by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral court. Purpose is to avoid multiplicity of suits and to simplify registration proceedings. But it appeared that the lower court proceeded to hear the case notwithstanding the manifestation by the petitioner of his intention to elevate to the SC the question of jurisdiction. The TC should have given the petitioner the opportunity to do so in the interest of due process. Arriving to a decision basing only on the evidences presented by the private respondent without regard to the evidence of the petitioner.RULING: Decision of the LC is set aside and ordered to conduct a new trial

2 | Page