G.R. No. L-6665, March 30, 1912
CLEMENTE MANOTOC, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FLORA CHOCO Y REYES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On January 31, 1906, Flora Choco and her sister Severina applied for land registration of a parcel in Tondo. Clemente Manotoc, an adjoining owner, was cited but did not appear or object. On June 30, 1906, the land was adjudicated and registered in favor of the Choco sisters.
On December 5, 1908, the Choco sisters filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration to survey the land according to their plan to determine its true boundaries adjacent to Manotoc’s property and to be placed in possession, claiming they did not initially know the exact boundaries. The court granted the petition. On January 6, 1909, the court surveyor, without notice, surveyed and marked the land. Manotoc then moved to suspend execution to correct boundaries, but his motion was denied as untimely under Section 38 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act), which requires such petitions within one year.
After the survey, Manotoc lost portions of his land, including part of his warehouse. He filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover damages against the Choco sisters (having withdrawn against the Insular Treasurer). He sought the value of three parcels: (a) 49.27 sq. meters, (b) 10.88 sq. meters (part of his warehouse floor), and (c) 13.92 sq. meters, totaling P1,500, plus P137 for light-material buildings on parcels (a) and (c).
The trial court found no fraud regarding parcels (a) and (c) and the buildings, disallowing those claims. However, it found fraud regarding parcel (b), as Flora Choco admitted knowing that Manotoc had long possessed the warehouse, yet included it based on unnamed persons’ advice. The court awarded Manotoc P204.76 for parcel (b). Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Choco sisters acted fraudulently in including parcel (b) in their registration application.
2. Whether Manotoc is entitled to damages for the loss of parcels (a) and (c) and the light-material buildings, despite the trial court’s finding of no fraud.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment.
1. Regarding Parcel (b): The Court affirmed the finding of fraud. Flora Choco admitted knowing that Manotoc had possessed the warehouse since she could remember. Including it in the application without valid basis constituted fraud. The award of P204.76 for parcel (b) was upheld.
2. Regarding Parcels (a) and (c) and the Buildings: The Court reversed the trial court’s disallowance. It held that Manotoc was entitled to damages for these parcels and the buildings. The Choco sisters admitted in their petition that they did not know the true boundaries at the time of registration and that the buildings existed before the proceedings. Thus, Manotoc could not have been negligent in failing to object during registration, as he was unaware of the boundary encroachment until the survey two and a half years later. The inclusion of these parcels deprived him of property without due process or opportunity for review under the Land Registration Act.
The Court ordered the trial court to render a new judgment awarding damages for parcels (a) and (c) and the buildings, in addition to the award for parcel (b). No costs were awarded.
Justices Mapa, Moreland, and Trent concurred; Justice Carson dissented.