G.R. No. 34428, December 29, 1930
BALTAZAR MORALES, petitioner, vs. ISIDRO PAREDES, Judge of First Instance of Pangasinan, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Pedro, Rosendo, and Prudencio Gavino applied for the registration of a parcel of land in San Quintin, Pangasinan. On June 23, 1930, the Court of First Instance granted their application and rendered a decision in their favor. Baltazar Morales, who claims ownership of the same land, was not notified of the registration proceedings and only learned of the decision in early September 1930. On September 18, 1930, Morales filed a motion for reconsideration in the same court, which appears to have remained pending. Without waiting for the resolution of that motion, Morales filed the present action, seeking to set aside the decision and obtain a new trial under Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging fraud.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner correctly availed of the remedy under Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure to challenge the land registration decision based on fraud.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner mistakenly pursued the wrong remedy. Assuming the allegations of fraud are true, the proper recourse is a petition for review under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, not an action under Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court clarified that a petition for review under Section 38 may be filed at any time after the rendition of the court’s decision and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the final decree of registration, contrary to the petitioner’s contention that such review must await the issuance of the final decree. The Court emphasized that Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked when other adequate remedies, such as the review under the Land Registration Act, are available. The costs were imposed on the petitioner.