G.R. No. L-10810; March 28, 1916
THE MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO, PROVINCE OF LA UNION, petitioner-appellee, vs. GABRIEL TAVORA, objector-appellant.

FACTS:
The Municipality of Agoo filed a petition for the registration of a parcel of land (Lot No. 3) in the Court of Land Registration. A plan (Exhibit A of the plaintiff) was submitted with the petition. No opposition was filed, and on October 14, 1913, the court issued a decree ordering the registration of the land in the municipality’s name. The corresponding certificate of title was issued on December 13, 1913.

Within one year from the decree, Gabriel Tavora filed a petition for a rehearing, alleging that the decree was fraudulently obtained. Tavora claimed that a portion of his land, bounded by a long-standing stone wall, was wrongfully included in the municipality’s registration. He asserted that in 1907, a survey (Exhibit A of the defendant) was conducted with the participation of both parties, where it was mutually agreed that the stone wall was the boundary between their properties. A second survey was later made for the registration proceedings, during which Tavora was again assured by the municipality’s representative and the surveyor that the plan would respect the agreed boundary based on his title documents. Relying on these assurances, Tavora did not file an opposition. He later discovered the alleged fraud in October 1914 when the municipal treasurer attempted to fix the boundaries according to the registered plan, which placed the stone wall and a strip of his land inside Lot No. 3.

The lower court denied Tavora’s motion, finding no fraud. Tavora appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the decree of registration was fraudulently obtained by the Municipality of Agoo, thereby warranting its reopening under the applicable land registration law.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order and ruled that fraud was committed in obtaining the decree.

The Court found that the municipality, through its representatives, had on two separate occasions (during the 1907 survey and the later survey for registration) agreed with Tavora that the ancient stone wall was the true boundary between their properties. Tavora had shown his title documents to support this. Despite this knowledge and agreement, the final plan (Exhibit A of the plaintiff) submitted for registration deliberately located the boundary line so as to place the stone wall and a portion of Tavora’s land within the municipality’s Lot No. 3.

The Court held that Tavora had a right to rely on the municipality’s agreement and assurances regarding the boundary. He was not obligated to double-check the filed plan at the court, as the fraud consisted of the municipality knowingly including land it had agreed did not belong to it. This constituted extrinsic fraud, which justified reopening the decree.

The decree of December 13, 1913, was ordered reopened. Tavora was granted a hearing, and the plan was ordered to be corrected to establish the stone wall as the true boundary between the properties. No costs were awarded.