GR 19090; (December, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19090 December 28, 1964
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, AMANDO JOSON, VICTORIA BALMEO, ANTONIO BUSUEGO, and ROGELIO BUSUEGO, petitioners-appellants, vs. TEODORA BUSUEGO, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
A decree of registration for Lot No. 2497, Gapan Cadastre, was issued in favor of Teodora Busuego. Within one year from the decree’s issuance, two petitions were filed in the same cadastral proceeding to set aside the decree and cancel the certificate of title. The spouses Amando Joson and Victoria Balmeo claimed ownership of one-half of the lot, alleging they acquired it by purchase from Teodora’s mother, Fausta Busuego. Antonio and Rogelio Busuego, Teodora’s nephews, claimed their deceased father was an undivided co-owner of one-half of the lot by descent. They alleged the decree was obtained by fraud, as Teodora misrepresented herself as the sole owner. Teodora contested the claims, arguing the sale to the Josons’ predecessors was fraudulent and that her brother had already received his inheritance share. The Court of First Instance, acting as a cadastral court, dismissed the petitions, holding it lacked authority as a cadastral court with special and limited jurisdiction to pass upon the issues raised.
ISSUE
Which court should take cognizance of a petition for review and annulment of a decree of registration filed within one year from its issuance on the ground of fraud—the cadastral court that issued the decree or the Court of First Instance exercising its general jurisdiction?
RULING
The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. It ruled that the petitions, filed within the one-year reglementary period under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ) and alleging actual fraud, are properly cognizable by the same court that rendered the decision and granted the decree. The Court held that as long as the final decree is not issued and the one-year period for review has not elapsed, the decision remains under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it, citing Afalla et al. v. Rosauro. The mention in the law of “the competent Court of First Instance” does not preclude the cadastral court from taking cognizance, as it is also a Court of First Instance acting on land registration cases.