G.R. No. 48463; July 10, 1942
JUAN MAGBANUA and FELICISIMA PINEDA, petitioners, vs. ARSENIO DIZON, Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, and THE DIRECTORS OF LANDS AND FORESTRY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Juan Magbanua and Felicisima Pineda applied for the registration of a 15.3139-hectare parcel of land in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry opposed the application, claiming (1) the applicants lacked sufficient title, and (2) a portion of the land formed part of a provincial road. During the hearing on August 16, 1940, the applicants made it of record that they were willing to cede to the government the portions claimed by it based on the reports and sketch plans (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3) attached to the records. The Provincial Fiscal, in view of this segregation, manifested that the government’s opposition was settled. The sketch plan (Exhibit 3) divided the land into Parcels A, B, C, and D, with Parcel B being a portion of the provincial road and Parcel D being a portion covered by a homestead application. The court rendered a decision on August 20, 1940, ordering the registration of Parcels A and C in the applicants’ names and declaring Parcel B government property. The decision was silent regarding Parcel D. The dispositive part also ordered the applicants to submit an amended plan based on the sketch, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands, for court approval before the issuance of the final decree and title. The decision was notified to the parties on August 23, 1940. The Director of Lands filed a motion for reconsideration on March 13, 1941, based on the court’s failure to exclude Parcel D. The respondent judge granted the motion, set aside the decision, and set the case for a new hearing. The petitioners filed this certiorari action to annul that order, contending the decision had become final and the judge lacked jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge had lost jurisdiction to entertain the motion for reconsideration and set aside his decision because that decision had already become final.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the respondent judge. The Court held that the decision of August 20, 1940, could not acquire finality because it left something yet to be done by the parties and the court before it could be enforced. Specifically, the decision ordered the applicants to submit an amended plan based on the sketch, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands, for the court’s approval before the issuance of the final decree and title. Such a decision, which requires further judicial action for its completion, is interlocutory and not appealable. Consequently, the respondent judge retained jurisdiction to act on the motion for reconsideration. The order setting aside the decision and setting the case for a new hearing was valid. Costs were awarded against the petitioners.