G.R. No. L-25141; January 31, 1969
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. SYLVIA DE KALINTAS, ET AL., claimants, RICARDO DEQUITO, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, HEIRS OF SALVADOR LOPEZ, oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

On December 5, 1963, Ricardo Dequito and 33 others filed a motion in Cadastral Case No. N-17 to set aside a decision dated February 28, 1959, rendered by the Justice of the Peace Court of Mati, Davao, sitting as a Cadastral Court. The decision awarded Lot No. 1285, Mati Cadastre, to the Municipality of Mati, subject to the condition that it be used exclusively as an agricultural school site; otherwise, it would revert to the heirs of Salvador Lopez. The movants claimed to be adverse possessors under claim of title since time immemorial, having introduced considerable permanent improvements, and that the Bureau of Lands intended to subdivide the lot in their favor. They averred the decision was null and void for lack of jurisdiction because: (a) Lot 1285 was a controverted lot with a value exceeding P5,000; (b) the heirs of Salvador Lopez had not filed any answer claiming title or interest; (c) the lot was the subject of another land registration case (No. 273, LRC Record No. 51858); and (d) a subsequent court order directing the Land Registration Commission to issue a decree conformable to the cadastral decision was also void. Upon learning that a decree had already been issued on October 14, 1963, the movants, on March 23, 1964, sought to withdraw their motion to set aside and filed an alternative petition for review under Section 38 of Act No. 496 , realleging the jurisdictional defects and adding that the Lopez heirs procured the decision through fraud and connivance with the Justice of the Peace. The Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal of the original petition but refused to give due course to the petition for review, ruling it constituted an amendment that changed the theory or cause of action and could not be entertained in the same proceedings, requiring it to be filed as a separate action. Dequito, et al. appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the petition for review on the grounds that it constituted an improper amendment changing the theory or cause of action and could not be filed in the same proceeding.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court set aside the appealed order and remanded the records for further proceedings. The Court held that the petition for review was not properly an amendment to the previous motion to set aside the judgment, as their objectives were distinct: the review targets the decree issued by the Land Registration Commission, while the motion to set aside targets the decision of the court. Even if treated as an amendment, it did not change the cause of action or theory, as it restated and reproduced the same jurisdictional grounds, with the added allegation of fraud being compatible. Furthermore, Section 112 of the Land Registration Act (applicable to cadastral proceedings) requires that petitions after original registration be filed and entitled in the original case to avoid confusion. The Court declined to rule on the appellees’ contentions regarding the lot being uncontested and the petition’s timeliness, as these matters were not passed upon by the lower court and required scrutiny of the cadastral record not before the Supreme Court.