GR 91729; (November, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91729 November 19, 1991
MERCEDES ANICETA GARCIA, SPOUSES DULCESIMO ROSARIO AND VIOLETA REYES, AND ERLINDA O. ROSARIO, petitioners-appellants, vs. DOMINADOR G. MENDOZA, adjudicatee-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioner Mercedes Garcia claimed she and her husband, Cirilo Mendoza, purchased Lot No. 32080 in 1938 and later sold it under a pacto de retro to her co-petitioners, who took possession. In 1988, the cadastral court adjudicated the same lot to Dominador G. Mendoza, the son of Cirilo. Garcia alleged actual fraud, contending that Mendoza falsely represented that his father inherited the lot and had been in possession since 1987, leading to a donation. The petitioners filed a petition for review of judgment in the cadastral court, which was denied.
Mendoza opposed the petition, arguing that a petition for relief from judgment under the Land Registration Act does not apply to cadastral proceedings. He asserted that he had duly filed his claim, notices were sent to all interested parties, and the court adjudicated the lot to him ex-parte due to the lack of any opposition.
ISSUE
Whether a petition for review for relief from judgment, based on fraud, is available in a cadastral proceeding under Act No. 2259 (Cadastral Act) in relation to Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act).
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the denial of their petition. The legal logic hinges on the explicit integration of the Land Registration Act’s provisions into cadastral proceedings. Section 11 of the Cadastral Act ( Act No. 2259 ) states that trials shall be conducted in the same manner as in the Court of Land Registration and “shall be governed by the same rules.” This makes the remedial provisions of the Land Registration Act applicable.
Specifically, Section 38 of Act No. 496 allows a person deprived of land by a decree obtained through fraud to file a petition for review within one year. The Court, citing Tangco v. Vianzon, affirmed that this provision applies to cadastral cases. Since the petitioners filed their petition within the one-year period and alleged fraud, they are entitled to a review. The case was remanded to the trial court for reception of evidence on the fraud claim.