G.R. No. 130768 . March 21, 2002.
CRISANTO L. FRANCISCO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and REGINO B. RELOVA, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Regino B. Relova, Jr. filed a petition for registration of two parcels of land (Lots 1834 and 1832) in Taytay, Rizal, alleging open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since 1958. The Republic opposed. After an initial hearing where no other oppositors appeared, the trial court declared a general default (except for the Republic) and proceeded to receive evidence ex-parte. The Land Registration Authority (LRA) reported discrepancies in the plans and recommended further checks. The trial court rendered a decision confirming Relova’s title to the lots. The LRA later submitted a Supplementary Report with corrected technical descriptions for both lots. The trial court approved the corrected description for Lot 1832 but denied republication for Lot 1834, deeming the correction insubstantial. A writ of possession was issued. Petitioner Crisanto L. Francisco later entered his appearance as an oppositor, filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Possession, and subsequently filed a Petition for Reopening and Review of the decree of registration under Article 32 of P.D. 1529. He alleged actual fraud by Relova in the application (including false testimony about possession and predecessor’s purchase, and failure to republish the corrected notice), and claimed ownership and possession of Lot 1832. The trial court initially granted the reopening to receive evidence on the fraud allegations but, upon Relova’s motion for reconsideration, reversed itself and denied the petition to reopen, reiterating its original decision and ordering the issuance of the writ of possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order denying the petition for reopening. Francisco’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether petitioner was denied due process when the trial court denied his petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to substantiate his allegations of actual fraud in the registration proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The decision of the Court of Appeals was REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court was ordered to reopen the land registration case and afford both parties full opportunity to substantiate their claims. The Court held that the trial court committed reversible error by denying the petition to reopen without hearing. A person deprived of land by a decree obtained through actual fraud may seek reopening and review. While the trial court may have doubted the veracity of the fraud allegations, the proper course was to deny a motion to dismiss and proceed to a hearing on the merits. The Torrens system cannot be used to perpetuate fraud against the real owner. The trial court’s initial recognition that the fraud allegations “necessarily require proof which can only be adduced in a proper hearing or trial” was correct, and its subsequent reversal deprived petitioner of due process.