GR L 10676; (March, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10676; March 29, 1958
FELICIANO ABAD, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES (THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS), respondent.
FACTS
On April 23, 1924, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija ordered the subdivision of Lot No. 2959 of the Cuyapo cadastre into Lots Nos. 2959-A (public land) and 2959-B (adjudicated to the owners of Hacienda Esperanza). This order was affirmed by the Supreme Court on March 10, 1925, which declared the demarcation line to be a straight line from point M-3 to point M-20. After the decision became final, the lot was surveyed by cadastral surveyors, and the subdivision plan was approved by the Director of Lands on May 7, 1926. On November 24, 1930, the court approved the plan and ordered the issuance of a final decree of registration. Decree of Registration No. 2253 was issued on December 15, 1930, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4914 was issued to the owners of Hacienda Esperanza on January 14, 1931. The Government later sold Lot No. 2959-A to third parties. On November 20, 1951, the Director of Lands filed a petition for the relocation of monument M-20, alleging a mistake in the original survey that resulted in the improper transfer of about 2,000 hectares of public land to Hacienda Esperanza. The trial court initially authorized the relocation but later denied the petition on January 29, 1953. The Court of Appeals reversed this order, reserving to the Director of Lands the right to file a petition under Section 112 of Act No. 496 for correction of the decree and title. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the relocation and correction of the decree of registration and certificate of title can be undertaken under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ).
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and revived the trial court’s order denying the petition. The Court held that Section 112 of the Land Registration Act authorizes the correction, modification, or amendment only of a certificate of title or a memorandum thereon, not of a decree of registration. A decree of registration becomes incontrovertible one year after its entry, as provided under Section 38 of the same Act, and cannot be reopened except on the ground of fraud within that one-year period, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest. The alleged mistake was not an error in entering the certificate of title but a mistake in the survey that served as the basis for the decree. Such a mistake cannot be corrected under Section 112 after the decree has become final. Furthermore, the Court noted that the report of the surveyor, Zacarias Gatchalian, which was the basis for the relocation petition, was found by the trial court to be devoid of probative value, as it was prepared arbitrarily and based on hearsay.