G.R. No. L-6094 August 27, 1954
TEODORICO SANTOS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CATALINA ICHON, LUISA CORDERO DE PEDREGOSA, JOSE CORDERO, JR. and LORENZO CORDERO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves a portion of a residential lot in Burauen, Leyte. In 1936, Jose S. Cordero, a co-owner of the lot (which was conjugal property with his first wife, with his half-share being 298 sqm out of 596 sqm), sold a specific 160-square-meter portion by metes and bounds to Felipe R. Santos via a public instrument (Exhibit “A”). Felipe R. Santos then sold the same portion to Aurea Espada (Exhibit “B”), with one of Jose Cordero’s sons, Lorenzo Cordero, signing as a witness. Finally, Aurea Espada sold it to plaintiff Teodorico Santos (Exhibit “C”), who has since paid the taxes. The defendants, heirs of Jose S. Cordero, do not deny these successive transfers but argue that the sale by Jose S. Cordero of a specific portion of an undivided property is invalid because the entire lot (Lot 293) had been adjudicated by the Cadastral Court to Jose S. Cordero and his children as co-owners, and no subdivision had been effected. They contend the plaintiff’s proper remedy is a petition for review in the cadastral case, not an independent action. The trial court found the sale valid, noting the presence and implied consent of the children during the sale and Lorenzo Cordero’s act as a witness to a subsequent transfer.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint on the ground that an independent action for recovery is not the proper remedy, and that the plaintiff should have filed a petition for review in the cadastral case.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. A petition for review under the Land Registration Act requires fraud by the applicant in procuring registration to deprive a party of their day in court. Here, there was no allegation or proof that Jose S. Cordero procured registration fraudulently against the plaintiff or his predecessors, as they all derived title from Cordero himself. While the plaintiff could have moved to reopen the cadastral case before the decree became final, he chose an independent action. The trial court’s factual findings, which appellants did not contest, conclusively established the plaintiff’s valid ownership through the chain of title from Jose S. Cordero. Therefore, the independent action was proper, and the decision is affirmed, without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to petition in the cadastral case for the subdivision of Lot 293 and the adjudication of his portion.