G.R. No. L-36610 June 18, 1976
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioners, vs. HON. AMADO B. REYES, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bataan, Branch II, and ELISEO PALATINO, respondents.

FACTS

On September 6, 1972, private respondent Eliseo Palatino filed an application for original registration of title over a parcel of land in Mariveles, Bataan, under Act No. 496. The Commissioner of Land Registration issued the notice of initial hearing. On the hearing date, December 21, 1972, no opposition was filed, and the respondent court issued an order of general default against all persons, including the Director of Lands. Subsequently, on January 5, 1973, the court rendered a decision adjudicating the land in favor of Palatino.
The petitioners, the Republic and the Director of Lands, received notice of the order of default and the decision on January 17, 1973. On February 14, 1973, they filed a motion to lift the order of default and for reconsideration. They argued that the original records were not forwarded to the Solicitor General as required by law, preventing a proper opposition. They further contended the land was part of a U.S. Military Reservation declared alienable only in 1967, making Palatino’s claim of 30-year possession impossible, and that a prior cadastral proceeding had declared the lot public land, constituting res judicata. The trial court denied their motion on March 26, 1973.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and in proceeding to grant the application for registration despite the alleged jurisdictional and procedural defects.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The legal logic centers on the finality of the trial court’s decision due to the petitioners’ failure to perfect a timely appeal. The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The order of default and the subsequent decision became final when the petitioners, instead of appealing from the order of default, filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision long after the reglementary period to appeal had lapsed. Their motion did not suspend the running of the period for appeal.
On the substantive arguments, the Court found they involved questions of fact requiring the presentation of evidence, which the petitioners were precluded from doing because they were declared in default and did not appeal from that order. The claim of res judicata based on a prior cadastral decree and the allegation that the land was inalienable were evidentiary matters that should have been raised during the trial or in a timely appeal. The Court emphasized that the State’s right to seek reversion of public land is not barred by a prior judgment in a land registration case if the land was in fact inalienable. However, such a claim must be pursued in a separate direct action for reversion, not via a petition for certiorari attacking a final and executory judgment. The denial was without prejudice to the filing of a separate reversion action.