G.R. No. L-41132. April 27, 1988.
VICTORINO HERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SUBSTITUTED HEIRS OF REV. FR. LUCIO V. GARCIA (DECEASED), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Victorino Hernandez sought a review of a land registration decree under Section 38 of Act No. 496 , alleging extrinsic fraud. The properties, Lots 1-A, 1-B, and 2 in Parañaque, originated from a common owner, Andres San Buenaventura. In 1956, government surveyors installed concrete monuments (“mojones”) along a line mutually agreed upon by Hernandez and Fr. Lucio V. Garcia to demarcate their respective estates, which were derived from San Buenaventura. Hernandez’s tenants had long occupied his portion.
In 1959, Fr. Garcia applied for registration. Unbeknownst to Hernandez, the Advance Plan (Psu-172410-B) submitted with the application included a 220-square-meter area that lay beyond the agreed boundary marked by the mojones, encroaching onto Hernandez’s land. Relying on the visible monuments and the recent agreement, Hernandez did not oppose the application. The registration was granted, and Decree No. 132620 and OCT No. 8664 were issued in Fr. Garcia’s name. Upon discovering the encroachment, Hernandez promptly filed a petition to reopen the decree.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Hernandez’s petition for review of the land registration decree on the ground of extrinsic fraud.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, finding that extrinsic fraud was present, which prevented Hernandez from asserting his claim. The legal logic centers on the exception to the general rule that factual findings of the appellate court are binding. The Court found that the appellate court overlooked pivotal, uncontroverted facts which, if properly considered, would have altered the outcome.
First, the existence of the 1956 government-installed mojones along the mutually agreed boundary was not seriously disputed. The respondents’ defense merely questioned the agreement’s binding effect, not the monuments’ presence. Second, the Advance Plan submitted by Fr. Garcia deliberately disregarded these official markers and instead used false boundary lines, creating a fraudulent impression that no alteration to the agreed limits had been made. This artifice lulled Hernandez into inaction, constituting extrinsic fraud that deprived him of his day in court.
The Court also corrected the appellate court’s erroneous application of the Statute of Frauds. The agreement fixing the boundary was not a contract for the sale of land or a lease exceeding one year; it was a mere boundary agreement, which does not require a writing to be enforceable under Article 1403(2)(e) of the Civil Code. Hernandez’s testimonial evidence was therefore admissible. Consequently, the inclusion of the 220-square-meter area in Fr. Garcia’s title was declared null and void. The Register of Deeds was ordered to cancel OCT No. 8664 and issue a new title excluding the disputed area in favor of Hernandez.