GR L 2842; (December, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2842 December 29, 1949
JOSE T. VALMONTE and JOSE R. JACINTO, petitioners, vs. MARIANO NABLE, Judge of the First Instance of Nueva Ecija, and JULIO VALMONTE and HIS CO-HEIRS, respondents.
FACTS
In a cadastral proceeding, lot No. 1361 was adjudicated to Teodora Navarro, subject to an encumbrance in favor of spouses Jose R. Jacinto and Tomasa Goduco. Teodora later sold portions of the lot to Jacinto and assigned her right of repurchase to Jose T. Valmonte. Subsequently, other heirs of Teodora’s parents filed a separate civil case (Civil Case No. 176) against Jacinto and Valmonte, claiming that Teodora’s sales were void due to her mental incapacity and fraud, and that the lot should be partitioned among all heirs. Petitioners Jacinto and Valmonte moved for the issuance of a final decree over the lot in the cadastral court. Respondent Judge Nable issued an order holding in abeyance the issuance of the final decree pending the outcome of Civil Case No. 176 and compliance with a prior order for subdivision of the lot. Petitioners filed this action for certiorari and mandamus to annul that order and compel the issuance of the final decree.
ISSUE
Whether a cadastral court may suspend the issuance of a final decree over an adjudicated lot pending the resolution of a separate civil case challenging the adjudicatee’s title and pending compliance with a subdivision order.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The issuance of a final decree in a land registration or cadastral case is not a ministerial act but a judicial function resting within the sound discretion of the court. The decision in a cadastral case does not become final and incontrovertible until one year after the entry of the final decree. During this period, the decree may be reopened for fraud. Here, the separate civil case directly attacks the title of the adjudicatee on grounds of fraud and breach of trust, and its outcome could vitally affect the cadastral decision. Furthermore, the cadastral court had previously ordered the subdivision of the lot to segregate portions adjudicated to other claimants, and there was no showing that the amended plans and technical descriptions required for the final decree had been completed. Therefore, the respondent judge did not commit error in suspending the issuance of the final decree.
AI Generated by Armztrong.