G.R. No. L-2872 May 30, 1951
MELENCIO ARCEO, claimant-appellee, vs. ANDRES VARELA, claimant-appellant.

FACTS

In Cadastral Case No. 50, Lot No. 13956 was claimed by Jose Ma. Gabriel and Carmen P. Gabriel as an inheritance. Lot No. 14076 was claimed by the administrator of the intestacy of Mariano R. Varela for said intestacy and for Mariano’s brother, appellant Andres R. Varela, stating the lot was acquired by the two brothers by inheritance and should be adjudicated one-half to Mariano’s intestacy and one-half to Andres. Jose Ma. Gabriel and Carmen P. Gabriel sold Lot No. 13956 to appellee Melencio Arceo. The administrator of Mariano Varela’s intestacy, with court approval, sold to Arceo the intestacy’s interest in Lot No. 14076. Arceo then filed an answer in the cadastral proceeding claiming both lots. A hearing was set without notice except to the provincial fiscal and Arceo. On August 26, 1944, Judge Primitivo L. Gonzales adjudicated both lots to Arceo. On August 18, 1947, with the decision final, Arceo petitioned for issuance of the corresponding decree and title. Andres Varela opposed, alleging he acquired the lot by inheritance and praying the decision be set aside and a new trial ordered on grounds of fraud and the judge’s lack of authority. The court overruled the opposition and ordered issuance of the decree and title to Arceo. Andres Varela appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether Judge Primitivo Gonzales, as a judge-at-large assigned to Batangas, had authority to hear and decide the cadastral case.
2. Whether the adjudication of the lots to Arceo was without due process and whether the motion for reopening on the ground of fraud should have been granted.

RULING

1. On the judge’s authority: The Court held that Judge Gonzales, as a judge-at-large assigned to the Court of First Instance of Batangas, was clothed with the powers of that court over all cases, including cadastral cases, as jurisdiction over land registration had been transferred to Courts of First Instance by Act No. 2234 . The law presumes a court or judge acted in lawful exercise of jurisdiction.
2. On due process and fraud:
– For Lot No. 13956: The Court found no merit. The record showed the lot was claimed first by the Gabriels and later by their grantee, Arceo. There was no showing that a claim was filed on behalf of the Varela intestacy or appellant for this lot; thus, neither appellant nor the administrator’s attorney was entitled to notice. The order for issuance of decree and title for this lot is affirmed.
– For Lot No. 14076: The Court held the lower court erred. The record showed the lot was claimed for both the intestacy of Mariano Varela and appellant Andres Varela. The deed of sale from the administrator to Arceo expressly sold only the right and participation of the deceased Mariano Varela and his heir, indicating Mariano did not own the whole lot. Arceo, with actual or constructive knowledge of this, filed a sworn claim for the whole lot, which was deemed bad faith amounting to fraud. Citing Palet vs. Tejedor, a co-owner who obtains registration of a lot he knows is not wholly his acts in bad faith, and the decree may be reviewed. Since appellant’s petition for reopening on fraud was filed before the final decree was issued, it should have been granted.
DISPOSITIVE: The order for issuance of a decree and title in favor of Melencio Arceo is affirmed for Lot No. 13956 but revoked for Lot No. 14076. As to Lot No. 14076, the case is ordered reopened and remanded to the lower court for proper proceedings. Costs against appellee.