G.R. No. L-16254; October 26, 1961
Gregorio Abing, et al., petitioners-appellants, vs. Ago Amistad, et al., oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

Ago Amistad and others successfully petitioned to reopen the Baguio Townsite Reservation case under Republic Act No. 931 . The Court of First Instance found their predecessors had possessed the subject lands since before July 26, 1894, and due to lack of personal notice in the original reservation proceedings, ordered the lands registered in their names as heirs. The decision became final, a decree and an Original Certificate of Title were issued. The heirs later sold the lands to Gregoria Arnaldo, who obtained a Transfer Certificate of Title.
Gregorio Abing and others, who were occupants of portions of the land, filed a petition in the same Townsite Reservation case seeking annulment of the registration proceedings and cancellation of the titles. They alleged they had been in continuous possession since July 4, 1945, that the lands were public domain, and that they had a verbal agreement with the Amistads whereby the latter would secure a free patent for the benefit of all occupants under Republic Act No. 782 . They claimed the Amistads violated this trust by registering the lands solely in their own names. The trial court dismissed the petition, citing lack of allegations of actual fraud, that the petition was filed out of time, and that there was an innocent purchaser for value.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners-appellants can avail themselves of the remedy under Section 38 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act) to reopen a decree of registration on the ground of fraud.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that appellants could not invoke Section 38 of Act No. 496 . The legal logic proceeds from the nature of the property and the petitioners’ own allegations. Section 38 allows a petition for review within one year after entry of a decree, based on fraud, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest. While the amended petition was filed within the one-year period and contained allegations of fraud, the Court ruled the provision inapplicable.
Crucially, the petitioners themselves consistently claimed the lands were part of the public domain, not private property. Section 38 of the Land Registration Act governs the reopening of decrees for registration of private lands. The petitioners’ claim, based on an alleged trust agreement to secure a free patent, inherently acknowledged the land’s public character. Their right, if any, was merely an inchoate claim to a public land grant, which is subsidiary to the government’s title. The Court further noted that even if the scope of the provision were extended by analogy to claimants under the Public Land Law, the petitioners’ claim would fail because they alleged possession only since 1945, which did not meet the requisite period for an imperfect title under the applicable law. Since the land was adjudged registrable in the names of the appellees after the government’s opposition was not pursued, the petitioners had no direct cause of action to annul the decree. Their proper recourse, if any, was a separate action for reconveyance based on an implied trust, not a collateral attack on the decree itself under the Land Registration Act.