G.R. No. L-2470 : April 30, 1906

FACTS:
Pastor Lerma y Martinez filed an application for the registration of a parcel of land with the Court of Land Registration. The court granted the application and entered a decree of registration on September 27, 1904. On October 27, 1904, Dionisia Antonio and Toribia Mariano (and her husband) filed a motion to set aside the decree, alleging that Pastor Lerma committed fraud in his application by failing to state that they claimed ownership over portions of the land. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the movants had not been in actual possession of the land for years and that Pastor Lerma had cultivated the land recently. The movants appealed the denial to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Pastor Lerma committed fraud in his application for land registration by failing to disclose the claims of Dionisia Antonio and Toribia Mariano.
2. Whether the trial court’s findings of fact, which were adverse to the movants, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
3. Whether the Court of Land Registration lacked jurisdiction because the decree was allegedly entered before the completion of the required 20-day publication period.

RULING:
1. No fraud was committed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Pastor Lerma did not act fraudulently. The evidence showed that the movants, Dionisia Antonio and Toribia Mariano, had not been in actual possession of the land for a significant period (since 1898 and 1901, respectively), while Pastor Lerma had been cultivating it. Their claims were based merely on past cultivation, not on actual occupation at the time of the application. Therefore, Pastor Lerma had no duty to state their claims in his application, as they were not in possession.

2. The Supreme Court cannot review the findings of fact. The appellants did not file a motion for a new trial in the court below on the ground that the findings of fact were plainly against the evidence, as required by the then-applicable procedural law (Act No. 1108, adopting Section 497 of Act No. 190 ). Consequently, the Supreme Court is bound by the factual conclusions of the trial judge.

3. The trial court had jurisdiction; the procedural objection was raised too late. The alleged defectthat the decree was entered before the expiration of the 20-day publication periodis a procedural error that does not negate the court’s jurisdiction over the case. The proper remedy for such an error was a timely motion to set aside the decree in the trial court. By raising this issue for the first time on appeal, and after the 30-day period to move for reopening had lapsed, the appellants are barred from contesting the decree on this ground.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision of the Court of Land Registration is affirmed. The appellants are ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.