G.R. No. L-10795, December 17, 1957
TEOTIMO OCHOTORENA, ET AL., applicants-appellees, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL., oppositors. THE HEIRS OF RAFAEL TUMACLAS, ET AL., petitioners-appellants.

FACTS

On October 7, 1937, Ana Zason and her children, the Ochotorenas, applied for the registration of thirteen lots in Zamboanga. After Ana Zason’s death, the case proceeded with her heirs. The Court of First Instance issued an order of general default except for several oppositors, including the Director of Lands. During the hearing, the applicants withdrew their claim to certain specified lots and a portion of another lot. On June 10, 1948, the court rendered a decision dismissing the oppositions and granting the petition for registration, except for the withdrawn areas. The private oppositors and the Director of Lands moved for a new trial, which was denied. Their appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed for failure to file the brief, making the decision final. A decree was entered, and Original Certificate of Title No. 0-54 was issued to the Ochotorenas on October 27, 1953.
On January 19, 1954, the heirs of Rafael Tumaclas filed a petition for review of the decree, alleging it was obtained through fraud. They claimed that before the hearing, appellees Teotimo Ochotorena and Trining Ochotorena told Rafael Tumaclas and his children not to worry about the lot covered by their free-patent application (No. 50895), which was included in the registration petition, as it would be excluded and no opposition was necessary. Relying on this, the Tumaclas did not file an opposition or appear at the hearing. The Ochotorenas opposed this petition. The lower court denied the petition for review on April 19, 1954, and denied reconsideration. The Tumaclas heirs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court as only questions of law were involved.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in not declaring the appellees in default for filing their opposition to the petition for review beyond the 15-day period under Rule 35, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
2. Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the appellants’ petition for review without first allowing them to present evidence on their allegation of fraud.

RULING

1. No, the lower court did not err in not declaring the appellees in default. Rule 35 of the Rules of Court applies to civil “actions.” A land registration case is not an “action” within the meaning of the Rules (Rule 2, Section 1). Under Rule 132, the Rules “shall not apply to land registration, cadastral and election cases . . . except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.” Therefore, the default rule cited by appellants is inapplicable.
2. No, the lower court did not err in dismissing the petition for review without a hearing on the fraud allegation. The appellants’ claimed interest in the land derived solely from their approved free-patent application. In the registration proceedings, the Government, represented by the Director of Lands, filed an opposition asserting the land was part of the public domain and specifically presented evidence (Exhibits XX, XX-2 to XX-4) that a portion (Lot No. 4-A) was covered by Rafael Tumaclas’s approved free-patent application. The lower court’s 1948 decision rejected this claim, declaring the lots to be the private property of the Ochotorenas and not public land. This decision became final and binding on the Government. Since the Government was not alleged to be a victim of fraud, the decree cannot be reviewed on grounds of fraud as far as the Government is concerned. Consequently, the appellants’ derivative claim from the Government is barred by the principle of res judicata, precluded by the final decision against the Government’s title, regardless of any alleged fraudulent representations made to them by the appellees.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellants.