G.R. No. L-4991 March 23, 1953
COSME OIDA FOLLOSCO, applicant-appellee, vs. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, oppositor, CRESENCIANA TUYAY, ET AL., petitioners-appellants.

FACTS

Cosme Oida Follosco filed an application for registration of a parcel of land in Nabua, Camarines Sur. At the initial hearing, the Director of Lands, Jose Duran, and several public land applicants appeared to oppose. The record was destroyed during the war and later reconstituted. Jose Duran withdrew his opposition, leaving the Director of Lands to appear for himself and the other public land applicants. On August 27, 1948, the court rendered a decision declaring Follosco the owner and ordering the land registered in his name. The Director of Lands appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to deposit stenographer’s fees. The decision became final, and an original certificate of title was issued to Follosco on April 27, 1950. Follosco obtained a writ of possession and later a court order for the sheriff to remove the houses of the oppositors (appellants) from the land. On October 2, 1950, the oppositors (Cresenciana Tuyay, et al.) filed a petition to set aside the August 27, 1948 judgment, claiming they were deprived of their day in court because the trial court had disregarded their oppositions and the appearance of their attorneys, stating they had no interest except as mere witnesses and were already represented by the Director of Lands. They invoked relief under Rule 38, Section 2, on grounds of excusable neglect. The trial court denied their motion on January 23, 1951, and revived the demolition order. The oppositors appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellants’ motion to set aside the judgment based on excusable neglect and deprivation of their day in court under Rule 38, Section 2.
2. Whether the order for the demolition of the appellants’ houses was issued in accordance with the Rules of Court.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion to set aside the judgment. The petition for relief under Rule 38 was filed out of time. Under Rule 38, Section 3, such a petition must be filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment and not more than six months after the judgment was entered. The decision was rendered on August 27, 1948. The petitions for relief were filed on October 2, 1950, and November 23, 1950, which were long after the six-month period had expired, whether computed from the date of the decision, its finality, or the order for the final decree.
2. The Supreme Court set aside the demolition order dated September 2, 1950. Under Rule 39, Section 13, the court may order the removal of improvements made by the defendant only after giving the defendant a reasonable time to remove them. The lower court’s order for the sheriff to remove the houses within 30 days failed to give the appellants a reasonable time to remove the improvements themselves, as required by the rule. This safeguard is essential to protect the defendant’s interest.
The order denying the motion to set aside the judgment was affirmed, but the demolition order was set aside. No costs were awarded.
Dissenting Opinion (Pablo, J.):
Justice Pablo dissented, arguing that the decision should be set aside and the appellants given an opportunity to be heard. He noted that under the Land Registration Act, as amended, a petition for review could be filed within one year from the issuance of the decree (February 2, 1950). The appellants, who were homesteaders in possession since 1924 and 1927, had acquired ownership by prescription, and Follosco’s action had prescribed. He viewed the affirmation of the judgment as a judicial deprivation of the homesteaders’ rights and property without a hearing.