G.R. No. L-9576; August 31, 1960
SIXTA VENGASO, ETC., plaintiff and appellee, vs. CENON BUENCAMINO, ET AL., defendants. FELIPE C. VERENDIA, defendant and appellant.

FACTS

In Cadastral Case No. 16, Cenon Buencamino, et al., claimed Cadastral Lot No. 1547, while plaintiff Sixta Vengaso opposed, asserting ownership of its northern half. Upon defendants’ petition, the lot was set for hearing without notice to plaintiff or her counsel. After receiving only the defendants’ evidence, the cadastral court adjudicated the entire lot to defendants on March 21, 1951, and a decree was issued on August 15, 1951. Plaintiff learned of this only on April 21, 1953, during a boundary relocation at the instance of a defendant’s husband. On May 28, 1953, plaintiff filed Civil Case No. 1192 in the Court of First Instance, praying for the annulment of the cadastral decision and the corresponding certificate of title (No. O-572) as fraudulently obtained, a declaration of her ownership, and reconveyance of the northern half. The lower court rendered a decision on May 27, 1953, declaring the cadastral judgment, decree of registration, and the registration itself null and void, and suggesting the cadastral proceedings be reopened to hear plaintiff’s claim. Defendants appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court had authority or jurisdiction to annul the decision of the cadastral court and the corresponding decree of registration.

RULING

No. The lower court committed a grave and reversible error. Upon the expiration of the one-year period from the date of the decree of registration (August 15, 1951), the decree and the title issued become incontrovertible and may no longer be altered or set aside, in accordance with Section 38 of the Land Registration Act. The sole remedy of a landowner whose property has been wrongfully registered in another’s name after one year is not to set aside the decree, but to bring an ordinary action for reconveyance or, if the property has passed to an innocent purchaser for value, for damages, as provided under Section 55 of the same Act. The lower court’s annulment of the decree and its order to reopen the cadastral proceedings violated the doctrine of incontrovertibility. The proper course was for the lower court to hear plaintiff’s action for reconveyance in Civil Case No. 1192, respecting the decree as incontrovertible, and to order or deny reconveyance based on the evidence. The decision appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.