G.R. No. 34118 , October 28, 1930
PILAR ANTIPORDA and JUAN ARADA, petitioners, vs. EMILIO MAPA, Judge of First Instance of Pasig, Rizal, et al., respondents.

FACTS

On July 17, 1928, the respondent judge ordered the registration of three parcels of land in favor of petitioner Pilar Antiporda. A final decree was issued on October 27, 1928, by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office. On November 9, 1929, respondents Clemente, Tomas, and Juan Antiporda filed a petition to reopen the decree, alleging that Pilar Antiporda obtained registration through fraud by excluding her co-heirs. The respondent judge granted the petition and set aside the decision and decree on March 31, 1930. Pilar Antiporda and her husband then filed this certiorari petition, arguing that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction because the petition for review was filed more than one year after the entry of the final decree.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction in reopening the final decree, considering that the petition for review was filed more than one year after the entry of the decree.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, declaring the order dated March 31, 1930, null and void, and reinstating the original decision and final decree.

The Court clarified that under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ), a petition for review on the ground of fraud must be filed within one year from the entry of the final decree. The “entry of the decree” refers to its entry in the General Land Registration Office by the Chief as ex-officio clerk of court, not its inscription in the Register of Deeds. Here, the final decree was entered on October 27, 1928, but the petition for review was filed on November 9, 1929more than one year later. Thus, the petition was filed out of time, and the respondent judge had no jurisdiction to reopen the decree.

The Court distinguished this case from Villados vs. San Pedro, where certiorari was denied because the petition for review was timely filed, and an appeal was an adequate remedy. Here, since the petition was filed beyond the one-year period, proceeding with a new trial would be futile, making certiorari the proper remedy to annul the void order.