G.R. No. L-8271; February 26, 1916
PETRONILA MARQUEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENTINA SACAY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On October 28, 1910, Petronila Marquez filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration to register a parcel of land under the Torrens system (Act No. 496). She claimed ownership by purchase from the heirs of Don Antonio Canlapan, who had acquired the land through a “composición con el estado” in 1891. After due notice and no opposition, the court decreed registration in favor of Marquez on March 17, 1911. Subsequently, Marquez sold the land under a pacto de retro to Paulina A. Policarpio on November 2, 1910, which was later converted into an absolute sale on September 9, 1911.
On September 13, 1911, Florentina Sacay filed a motion to set aside the decree of registration, alleging fraud under Section 38 of Act No. 496. The motion was denied. On December 28, 1911, Sacay filed another motion to reopen the decree under Section 110 of the same Act, which was also denied. Sacay appealed, arguing that she was an heir of Antonio Canlapan and that the registration was fraudulent.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Land Registration erred in denying Sacay’s motions to set aside or reopen the decree of registration in favor of Marquez.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Sacay’s motions.
1. The evidence presented by Sacay (baptismal certificates) was insufficient to prove her relationship to Antonio Canlapan or her claim as an heir.
2. There was no evidence of fraud on the part of Marquez, who had no knowledge of Sacay’s alleged rights.
3. The land had already been transferred to Paulina A. Policarpio, an innocent purchaser for value, before Sacay filed her motions. Under Section 38 of Act No. 496, an innocent purchaser for value is protected from claims arising after registration.
Thus, the decree of registration remained valid, and Sacay’s claims could not prevail against the registered title. The decision of the lower court was affirmed.