G. R. No. L-10795. December 17, 1957

This is an  appeal taken by the heirs of Rafael Tumaclas, from an order of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte.

It  appears that on October 7, 1937, one Ana Zason and her children Teotimo, Canuta, Jose, Rosario, Asuncion, Asteria, Pura, Alicia, Ricardo, Felix, Consolacion and Gavino, all surnained Ochotorenas applied  for  the registration of thirteen  (13) lots, with an aggregate area of 125.9629 hectares, more or leas, located in the sitio of Malugas, barrio Katipunan, Zamboanga.  Before the trial Ana Zason died, and the case was, continued by  his aforesaid  children and heirs.  The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga issued, on  January 16,  1948, an order  of general default, except as regards the Director of  Lands, Luis, Mamucay, Silvestre Bagatua, Magdaleno Orcia, Basilio Tumaclas,  Agapito Gumolon, Doroteo Gumolon, Patrick, Gumisad, Manuel Sagan, and Leon Taguibolos, who had filed their  oppositions to  said application.  At the hearing of the case, the applicants withdrew their  claim with respect to  Lots Nos. 2 and. 8 and a portion of the lot designated in a plan, marked Exhibit D,  with the printed  words “Agapito  Gumolon  (not contested).”  In due course, said court rendered a decision, dated June 10, 1948, dismissing the  aforesaid oppositions and granting the petition  for registration. of the lots applied for; except as  to  the above mentioned  lots and portion, which had been excluded.  In  September 1948, the private oppositors and the  Director of Lands sought a new trial, which was denied  on May 29, 1950.  An  appeal taken to the  Court of Appeals was  dismissed for failure to file the necessary brief, and after the aforesaid decision having been thus become final,  the  corresponding  decree was entered and Original Certificate of Title No. 0-54 was issued in favor of  the Ochotorenas on  October  27, 1953.

Less than three  (3)  months later, or on  January 19, 1953 the heirs of Rafael Tumaclas filed a petition for review upon the ground that said decree had been obtained through fraud, because prior  to the hearing  of this  case, appellees Teotimo Ochotorena,  and one Trining Ochotorena told Rafael Tumaclas  (now  deceased)  and  his  children not to worry  about the lot covered  by their free-patent application No. 50895, which had been  included in the petition for registration, inasmuch as said lot would be excluded  from the petition and no opposition need be filed in connection therewith, and because, accordingly, no such opposition was filed by the Tumaclas and they did not appear at the hearing already referred to.

The Ochotorenas opposed this petition for review which was denied by an order dated April 19, 1954.   A reconsideration of such order having  been subsequently denied, the Tumacias appealed therefrom to the Court of Appeals, which certified the records to this Court, only questions of law being involved therein.

Appellants maintained that the lower court erred in not declaring” the appellees in default, in violation, allegedly, of Rule  35, section 5, of the  Rules  of  Court,  said  appellees having filed their answer or opposition to appellants’ petition for review over fifteen  (15)  days after service of copy thereof.  There is no merit in this pretense,  for said Rule 35  applies  to civil “actions”,  and a land registration case is not an “action”, within the purview of the Rules of Court (Rule 2, section  1), and the  same—pursuant to  Rule 132 thereof’—’”shall  not  apply to land registration,  cadastral and election cases *  *  * except by analogy or in  a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.”

It is next urged that the lower court erred  in dismissing appellants’ petition for review  of the  decree of registration,  without  first  giving them an opportunity  to  introduce evidence in support of their allegations of fraud.   This contention  is,  likewise,  untenable.  Appellants  claim  an interest in  the subject-matter of this land registration case by  virtue merely of the approval by  the  Department of Agriculture and Commerce  of their application for a free- patent to a portion of the land  covered by said decree. The Government was,  however,  duly  represented in the registration proceedings.    The  Director  of Lands filed therein an opposition alleging’ that the land applied  for is part of the public domain.   At the hearing of  the case, said officer was represented by counsel and tried to prove that a portion of said land, marked in the corresponding plan as Lot No. 4-A, was covered by Free-Patent Application No. 50895  of Rafael Tumaclas, which was  approved by the Director of Lands, whose order to this effect was affirmed in a decision of the then Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce.  Copies of the orders  of both and of the decision of the latter were marked Exhibits  XX, XX-2 to XX-4 and introduced as part of the evidence for the  Government.  In due course, the  lower court rendered judgment declaring that the latter’s claim had not been  substantiated.  Soon thereafter a motion for new trial  was filed upon the ground that said decision of  the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce  was final and binding upon the courts of justice, which motion was denied by the lower court.   It is thus apparent that the  decision rendered on June 10, 1948, declaring that the lots, applied for ace, not part of  the  public domain,  but private property of  the Ochotorenas, which became final and  executory in 1953, is binding and  conclusive to the  Government.  Said decision may not be reviewed upon the ground of fraud, insofar as the Government is concerned, because it is not contended, and it does not appear, that the Government has been the victim of fraud.  In other words, as  regards the  latter, it is now definitely settled that said lots are not  public lands.

Upon the other hand, as applicants  for a free-patent, appellants’ interest in said property is derived from the Government.  Inasmuch, however,  as the  alleged  title of  the latter  was rejected  in said  decision, which  is final  and executory, it follows necessarily that appellants’ claim is, under  the principle of  res adjudicata,  barred  by  said decision, regardless of the fraudulent representations said to have been made to them by  the herein appellees.

Wherefore,  the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants.  It so  so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix,  JJ., concur.