GR 21150; (December, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21150 December 26, 1967
AMADO CAYANAN, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. LEON DE LOS SANTOS and FELIX L. CAMAYA, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
On May 30, 1958, the title of respondent Leon de los Santos to Lot No. 56 of the Porac Cadastre was confirmed by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. A decree of registration was issued on August 8, 1958. On December 16, 1958, within the one-year period, petitioners-appellants filed a petition for review in the same cadastral proceeding, alleging that the lot was registered in the name of de los Santos through actual fraud, deceit, and intentional omission of facts. The petition further alleged that a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on October 26, 1958, covering the same lot in favor of the other respondent, Felix L. Camaya. The petitioners prayed for the opening of the decree, cancellation of the titles, and adjudication of the lot in their favor. The lower court denied the petition in its order of February 9, 1959, ruling that since the lot had already been transferred to Camaya, the issue of whether the transfer was fictitious and whether Camaya was an innocent purchaser for value should be threshed out in an ordinary civil action and not in the petition for review. Petitioners appealed this order.
ISSUE
Whether, in a petition for review of a decree filed within the one-year period on the ground of actual fraud, the cadastral court can also inquire into an allegation that the lot subject of the decree was transferred in a simulated sale intended to avoid such a review.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed order. The cadastral court that rendered the decision and issued the decree has the authority to hear and determine the petition for review filed within the one-year period, including the inquiry into the alleged simulated sale. The Court held that the adjudication of land in a registration or cadastral case does not become final and incontrovertible until the expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree. Within this period, the decree may be reopened on the ground of fraud, and the court rendering the decree retains control and discretion over its decision. The petitions filed within one year from the decree’s issuance are properly cognizable by the court that rendered the decision and granted the decree. It was therefore error for the lower court to deny the petition and require the filing of an ordinary civil action. The case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga for a hearing on the merits of the petition for reopening.