G.R. No. 17866; March 20, 1922
Andree C. Chereau, applicant-appellee, vs. Asuncion Fuentebella, et al., objectors-appellants. Carmen Ortiz, intervener.

FACTS

Carmen Ortiz filed a petition to intervene in a land registration case (Andree C. Chereau vs. Asuncion Fuentebella, et al.) pending on appeal. She claims an interest in the land subject of registration, which was previously owned by her ex-husband, Andres Garchitorena. Ortiz admits she did not appear in the Court of First Instance to assert her interest, alleging fraud in the registration. She was divorced from Garchitorena in 1917, and as part of the divorce decree, the conjugal partnership was liquidated by an agreement approved by the court. In that agreement, Ortiz received P8,000 and expressly renounced all rights to any property of Garchitorena. After the divorce, Garchitorena conveyed the property in question to his children. Ortiz now seeks to intervene, arguing the divorce decree and liquidation are void because the ground for divorce (concubinage/adultry) was not established by a final criminal conviction as required by Act No. 2710.

ISSUE

Whether Carmen Ortiz has a valid interest in the property that justifies her intervention in the land registration case.

RULING

No. The petition for intervention is denied. The divorce decree, though possibly erroneous for not requiring a final criminal conviction, is valid and binding as it was rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties. The liquidation agreement, wherein Ortiz received P8,000 and renounced all rights to Garchitorena’s property, is likewise valid and conclusive. Consequently, Ortiz has no existing interest in the property subject of registration, and her lack of interest disqualifies her from intervening in the case.