G.R. No. 20933. December 22, 1923

This
is a petition, under section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for
relief from a judgment rendered by default in a land registration case.

The petitioner alleges that he was the applicant in land registration
case No. 20741 of the Court of First Instance of the Province of
Tayabas, in which he applied for registration of a parcel of land
situated in the barrio of Bundoc, municipality of Mulanay, Province of
Tayabas, in which case the Government of the Philippine Islands was the
only party opponent; that at the trial of said case the petitioner
presented all his evidence, but, at the request of the Government, the
trial was continued over the term to enable the Government to present
its evidence; that while said registration case was pending, cadastral
proceedings were instituted in regard to the district in which the land
in question is situated and that said parcel was designated as lot No.
9 in cadastral case No. 6 of the Province of Tayabas (cadastral record
No. 362); that in the meantime the petitioner left the Philippine
Islands for America and Europe and was absent from the Philippines
until a few months ago; that because of the fact that he was so absent,
he did not know or learn of the institution of said cadastral case No.
6 and did not receive or read any notice of the trial of the same; that
upon his return on or about April 17, 1923, the petitioner learned that
the aforesaid lot No. 9 had been declared public land on the ground
that no claimant for the same had appeared at the trial of the
cadastral case; that from the record of the said cadastral case No. 6
and in the report submitted to the Court of First Instance of the
Province of Tayabas by the chief surveyor of the General Land
Registration Office, it appears that the parcel of land designated as
lot No. 9, was the same land sought to be registered in land
registration case No. 20471.

The petitioner prays that the
decision in cadastral case No. 6 be reopened and set aside in regard to
lot No. 9, that the order of general default be set aside as to the
petitioner Fred M. Harden, and that a date be set for the presentation
of evidence with respect to the claim of the petitioner.

The
respondent in its answer does not deny the facts alleged in the
petition, but maintains that the decision in cadastral case No. 6 which
“declared and decreed” lot No. 9 of said case public land, must be
regarded as a final decree and that it, therefore, cannot be reopened
except on the grounds stated in section 38 of the Land Registration Act.

The question raised by the respondent is discussed at length in the cases of the Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abural (39 Phil., 996); Caballes vs. Director of Lands and Court of First Instance of Laguna (41 Phil., 357) and Sotto vs.
Sotto (43 Phil., 688), in all of which cases this court has arrived at
conclusions adverse to the contention of the respondent. That the
decision which the petitioner herein seeks to have set aside is not the
kind of final decree described in section 40 of the Land Registration
Act, is well shown by the fact that no certificate of title would issue
directly upon such a decision without the issuance of a formal decree
of confirmation and registration.

The record reveals
regrettable carelessness or indifference in the trial of as much of the
cadastral case as relates to the land in question. The fact that there
was another land registration case pending, in which the petitioner
claimed the land, appeared in the record of the cadastral case and in
the report of the chief surveyor of the General Land Registration
Office; it must have been known to the representatives of the
Government and should have been known to the trial court. It may
further be noted that the petitioner was probably prevented from
obtaining a final decision in the first land registration case by the
continuance of the trial at the instance of the representative of the
Government. For the Government, in these circumstances, to take
advantage of the petitioner’s absence seems, to say the least, unfair.
The petitioner is clearly entitled to the relief demanded and we feel
constrained to say that the zeal displayed by the representatives of
the Government in endeavoring to prevent the reopening of the case is,
in our opinion, wholly misdirected.

The judgment in
cadastral case No. 6 of the Province of Tayabas is hereby reopened in
regard to its lot No. 9, the order of general default is set aside as
to the said lot, and the Court of First Instance of Tayabas is hereby
directed to conduct a new trial of the case, giving both parties
opportunity to present their evidence. No costs will be allowed in this
instance. So ordered.

Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.