G.R. No. 28151, October 3, 1927
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and AMBROSIO CRISTAL, et al., petitioners, vs. EDUARDO GUTIEREZ DAVID, Judge of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, VICENTE LOPEZ and CARMEN GONZALEZ, respondents.

FACTS

On August 3, 1918, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija rendered a decision in a land registration case, ordering the registration of 200 hectares of land in favor of the applicants (predecessors of respondents Vicente Lopez and Carmen Gonzalez) and declaring the remaining 200 hectares of the 400-hectare application as public land. This decision became final and executory. Nearly five years later, on May 26, 1923, the said owners filed a motion to amend the 1918 decree to include the excluded portion. Without notice to the homesteaders (petitioners Ambrosio Cristal and 20 others) who had applied for and were occupying parts of the excluded land, the court, through an auxiliary judge, granted the motion on July 9, 1923. The amended decree resulted in the issuance of a certificate of title on December 18, 1923, covering 692 hectaressignificantly more than the original 400 hectares applied forand encompassing the homesteaders’ lots. The homesteaders learned of the amended decree only when a writ of possession and ejectment was issued against them in 1927. Their motion for reconsideration in the lower court was denied.

ISSUE

Whether a judge of the Court of Land Registration (or Court of First Instance acting as such) has jurisdiction to alter, modify, or amend a final and executory decree in a land registration case.

RULING

NO. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. It held that the lower court acted without jurisdiction or in excess thereof when it amended the final decree of August 3, 1918, nearly five years after it became final. A fundamental rule of justice and due process prohibits the deprivation of property without notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Land Registration Law requires a hearing and proper notice to all interested parties. The amended decree of July 9, 1923, was issued without notice to the petitioner homesteaders who had acquired interests in the land, thereby violating their constitutional right to due process. Consequently, the amended decree and the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto are null and void. The Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of the respondents’ certificate of title and reinstated the validity of the original decree of August 3, 1918.