GR 144095; (April, 2005) (Digest)
March 17, 2026GR 226485; (June, 2018) (Digest)
March 17, 2026G.R. No. 117734 February 22, 2001
VICENTE G. DIVINA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and VILMA GAJO-SY, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves conflicting claims over a portion of Lot No. 1893 in Gubat, Sorsogon. The lot was originally owned by Antonio Berosa, sold to Teotimo Berosa, and subsequently to Jose P. Gamos in 1961. Gamos consolidated this lot with the adjoining Lot No. 1466. On January 19, 1967, Teotimo Berosa sold a portion designated as Lot 1893-B, with an area of 54,818 square meters, to petitioner Vicente Divina. This deed was registered on November 28, 1968. Meanwhile, on July 24, 1970, Gamos sold the consolidated property (Lots 1466 and 1893, totaling 100,034 sq. m.) to respondent Vilma Gajo-Sy. Gajo-Sy then filed an application for original registration of the consolidated property. The land registration court granted her application in 1975. Divina later filed a petition for review of the decree, alleging fraud, as he was not notified of the registration proceedings despite being a known claimant.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for review of the decree of registration was properly granted on the ground of actual fraud committed by the applicant, Vilma Gajo-Sy.
RULING
No, the petition for review was improperly granted. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court, holding that no actual fraud was proven to warrant reopening the decree. For fraud to be a ground for review under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, it must be actual or extrinsic, consisting of a deliberate omission or misrepresentation intended to deceive the court or deprive a party of their day in court. The Court found that Gajo-Sy’s failure to personally name Divina in her application did not constitute such fraud. Divina’s claim was based on a deed from Teotimo Berosa, who was no longer the owner, having previously sold the entire Lot 1893 to Gamos. Therefore, Divina was not a lawful claimant whose identity Gajo-Sy was obligated to disclose. The general description in the application as “To all whom it may concern” was sufficient. The decree had become final and incontrovertible, and Divina’s remedy, if any, was an action for damages against his vendor, not a petition to reopen the registration decree.