G.R. No. L-26582 November 28, 1969
Timoteo Rublico and Juliana Madrazo, petitioners-appellants, vs. Fausto Orellana, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Respondent Fausto Orellana filed an answer claiming ownership of Lots Nos. 1664 and 1665 in Cadastral Case No. IL-N-2. Petitioners Timoteo Rublico and Juliana Madrazo did not file an answer. After an order of general default was entered, the clerk of court received evidence for Orellana as the sole claimant for these non-contested lots. The court approved the report and rendered judgment adjudicating the lots in favor of Orellana on November 20, 1964. On July 19, 1965, petitioners filed a petition to annul the judgment and/or review the decree of registration, alleging they owned the lots and that Orellana, “by means of fraud, made the court to believe that he is the owner” and that the judgment “was secured . . . by means of fraud.” Orellana moved to dismiss the petition. The court sustained the motion, holding that petitioners had no personality to file the petition because they did not file an answer and were declared in default, and they should have first secured the lifting of the order of general default. Petitioners appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for review of the decree of registration was properly dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the order of dismissal is affirmed, but on different grounds. The court below erred in holding that petitioners lacked personality to file the petition because they were not original claimants and did not first secure the lifting of the order of general default. Under Section 38 of Act 496, as amended, “any person” deprived of land by a decree obtained through fraud may file a petition for review within one year, provided the property has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser. The petitioner need not be an original claimant who filed an answer, as fraud might precisely prevent a person from filing an answer. However, the petition for review was properly dismissed because it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The allegation that respondent “by means of fraud made this Honorable Court believe that he is the owner” is a mere conclusion of law and does not aver specific facts showing the acts constituting the alleged fraud. Review of a decree requires a showing of actual fraud (actual malice), not constructive fraud or mere error. The order of dismissal is affirmed without prejudice to petitioners amending their petition within 15 days from the finality of this decision.