G.R. No. 17768 ; September 1, 1922
VICENTE SOTTO, petitioner, vs. FILEMON SOTTO, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente Sotto alleges he is the owner of Lot No. 7510 in Cebu. He left Cebu around 1907, leaving the respondent, Filemon Sotto, in charge of the lot. In April 1921, Vicente discovered that Filemon had fraudulently obtained registration of the lot in his own name, with a certificate of title issued on January 24, 1920. Due to his long absence, Vicente was unable to appear in the land registration proceedings to defend his rights. He filed a petition under Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reopen the land registration proceedings, annul the decision, and obtain a new trial. The respondent demurred, arguing the petition does not state a cause of action, primarily contending that Section 513 is not applicable to final decrees in land registration proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a petition to set aside a default judgment due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, is applicable to final decrees in land registration proceedings.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion, held that Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to land registration proceedings. The Court traced the legislative history, noting that Act No. 1108 (1904) amended the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ) by making specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Section 513, applicable to proceedings of the Court of Land Registration and review by the Supreme Court. The Court rejected the view that final decrees under the Torrens system are absolutely indefeasible against such a remedy. It reasoned that the remedy under Section 513 operates primarily between the original parties—the defrauded owner and the person unjustly enriched by the fraudulent decree—and does not impair the rights of an innocent purchaser for value who may have acquired the registered land. Since the land in this case remained in the respondent’s possession, the petition could proceed. The demurrer was overruled, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits.