G.R. No. L-47590; April 25, 1941
ARCADIO DUMLAO y JANUARIA RAYMUNDO, petitioners, vs. SIMEON RAMOS, as Judge of First Instance of Isabela, TIBURCIO BATOON and GERONIMA N. DE BATOON, respondents.

FACTS

On April 26, 1937, petitioners Arcadio Dumlao and Januaria Raymundo filed an answer for Lot No. 21 in Cadastral Case No. 38, claiming it as their conjugal property. No other answer was filed for the lot. After a general order of default against the whole world, petitioners presented their evidence and the court adjudicated the lot to them. On May 12, 1937, respondents Tiburcio Batoon and Geronima N. de Batoon filed a motion to set aside the order of adjudication and to be allowed to file an answer for the lot. On May 29, 1937, the court rendered a decision adjudicating the lot and its improvements to the petitioners’ conjugal partnership. On October 4, 1939, the clerk of court notified the parties’ lawyers that the respondents’ motion of May 12, 1937, would be submitted for the court’s consideration on October 28, 1939. On October 25, 1939, petitioners filed an opposition, alleging that in April of that year, the Register of Deeds had issued Decree No. 701664 for the contested lot in the name of the petitioners’ conjugal partnership. After hearing the incident, the court, in its order dated October 28, 1939, set aside its decision of May 29, 1937, the order for the issuance of the decree, and the decree itself for the contested lot. Petitioners assail this October 28, 1939 order for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Isabela acted without jurisdiction in issuing its order of October 28, 1939, which set aside its final decision, the order for issuance of a decree, and the decree itself in the cadastral proceeding.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court found that the respondents, upon learning of the adjudication made on April 26, 1937, filed their motion to set it aside on May 12, 1937, or 16 days later, alleging they were not negligent in failing to file an answer. When this motion was filed on May 12, 1937, the period to appeal from the order of adjudication (which was embodied in the decision of May 29, 1937) had not yet expired. This appeal period was suspended until the court resolved the respondents’ motion of May 12, 1937. Consequently, the order for the issuance of the decree and Decree No. 701664 itself were issued before the decision had attained finality. Furthermore, the petitioners had an adequate and proper remedy to challenge the validity of the October 28, 1939 order by appealing against it. The Supreme Court held that the present case is identical to the cases of T. Tarosa v. Hon. Roman A. Cruz ( G.R. No. 46248 ) and Isidro Alejandro v. Hon. Pastor M. Endencia (G.R. No. 45756). The petition was therefore denied, with costs against the petitioners.