G.R. No. 26323 , November 12, 1926
AGAPITA VILLADOS, MATEO GROSPE, JUAN GROSPE, SILVESTRE GROSPE and ANSELMO GROSPE, petitioners, vs. EGMIDIO SAN PEDRO, JUAN SAN PEDRO and THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, respondents.

DOCTRINE:
A petition for review of a judgment in a land registration case under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act may be filed at any time after the rendition of the judgment and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the final decree. Furthermore, a writ of certiorari is not an appropriate remedy when the aggrieved party has an adequate remedy by way of appeal from a final adverse decision.

FACTS

1. In 1908, respondents Egmidio and Juan San Pedro filed homestead applications for portions of a parcel of land.
2. In 1910, petitioners (the Grospe group and Agapita Villados) initiated registration proceedings (Case No. 7579) for the same land in the Court of Land Registration and obtained a decree and title in April 1912.
3. In 1915, the Supreme Court granted the San Pedros’ petition for review of that 1912 decree, finding fraud in the failure to notify them as occupants, and remanded the case for a new trial.
4. Before the new trial, a cadastral survey (Cadastral Case No. 6) was initiated. The parties agreed to have their claims adjudicated within this cadastral proceeding.
5. At the hearing for the cadastral case, the San Pedros did not appear or file their claim. The petitioners appeared, filed their answer, and on July 10, 1918, a decision was rendered adjudicating the land (Lot No. 419) to them.
6. On January 3, 1920, the San Pedros filed a motion for review of the July 10, 1918 cadastral decision, alleging they received no notice of the hearing, the petitioners’ claim, or the decision.
7. On January 31, 1920, the Court of First Instance granted the petition for review, finding that fraud was committed by the petitioners for not notifying the San Pedros of the trial and for not mentioning their adverse claim in the cadastral answer.
8. Over four years later, on June 18, 1924, the petitioners moved to set aside the January 31, 1920 order, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the petition for review was filed more than one year after the July 1918 decision, and that lack of personal notice in a cadastral case is not fraud. This motion was denied.
9. The petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari on July 31, 1926, seeking to annul the January 31, 1920 order granting the review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting the petition for review of the July 10, 1918 cadastral decision on January 31, 1920.
2. Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy for the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for certiorari.

1. On the Timeliness and Propriety of the Review: The Court held that the petition for review was filed on time. Citing *Rivera vs. Moran*, the Court ruled that under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, a petition for review may be filed at any time after the rendition of the judgment and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the final decree. Since the record showed that no final decree had been entered following the July 10, 1918 decision, the San Pedros’ petition for review filed on January 3, 1920, was well within the allowable period. The Court did not find it necessary to re-examine the finding of fraud by the lower court at this stage.

2. On the Propriety of Certiorari: The Court held that certiorari was not the proper remedy. The order of January 31, 1920, granting a new trial was an interlocutory order, not a final judgment on the title. The petitioners had an adequate and plain remedy by way of an appeal from any eventual final adverse decision after the new trial. Since they had preserved their exception to the order, they could raise all their objections on appeal. Certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal and is not granted where another adequate remedy is available.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition in the present case is therefore denied with the costs against the petitioners. So ordered.”