G.R. No. 20989. August 20, 1923

This is an original petition for the writ of certiorari, filed in the Supreme
Court on the 3rd day of June, 1923. Its purpose was to have annulled and set
aside an order of the respondent judge, dated the 23d day of June, 1923, by
virtue of which order a certain opposition presented in a land registration
case, and which had been voluntarily withdrawn by the oppositor, was reinstated
and a new trial granted after a final decree had been entered ordering the
registration of a certain parcel of land, under the Torrens system, in the name
of the original petitioner.

The petitioner in said land registration case now alleges that said order
reinstating said opposition, under the conditions above described, was illegal,
beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and was null and void, and prays that said
order be set aside and pronounced to be illegal and of non-effect.

The pertinent facts constituting the foundation of the present petition may
be briefly stated as follows:

(1) That the said Magdaleno Ruedas, the petitioner herein, on the 29th day of
November, 1922, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of the Province
of Cebu for the registration, under the Torrens system, of a certain piece or
parcel of land. The said petition was known as Expediente No. 147 and G.
L. R. O. No. 22663;

(2) That on the 29th day of January, 1923, the Attorney-General filed an
opposition, on behalf of the Director of Lands, to the registration of said
parcel of land upon the ground that the petitioner was not the owner and
therefore not entitled to have the same registered under the Torrens system;

(3) That on the 11th day of April, 1923, Luis and Ramon Ortiz presented their
opposition to the registration of said parcel of land alleging that they were
the owners of the same.

Upon the issue presented by the petition and the said oppositions, the
hearing upon the original petition was set for the 11th day of April, 1923. At
the opening of the trial the prosecuting attorney of said province, in open
court, withdrew the opposition which had been presented by the Attorney-General.
The prosecuting attorney based his withdrawal upon a letter which he had
received from the forester of district No. 13. The petition to withdraw the
opposition was granted by the lower court and the trial continued with the
petitioner herein as the petitioner therein and the opposition of Luis and Ramon
Ortiz.

On the 21st day of April, 1923, the respondent judge, in a carefully prepared
opinion, granted the registration of the said parcel of land and denied the
opposition of Luis and Ramon Ortiz, the only oppositors then before the court,
and issued a decree for the registration of said land. Notice of the decree was
given, and received by the Director of Lands on the 30th day of April, 1923. The
Attorney-General received notice of said decree on the 27th day of April, 1923.
No opposition whatever to the decree of the court ordering the registration of
said land having been presented, the respondent judge, on the 8th day of June,
1923, rendered a final decree ordering the registrar of lands to issue the
proper certificates to the petitioner. Later, and on the 20th day of June, 1923,
the prosecuting attorney of the Province of Cebu presented a motion in which he
asked that the opposition of the Director of Lands be reinstated upon the ground
that the same had been withdrawn by mistake. Upon a consideration of said
motion, notwithstanding the objection of the petitioner herein, the motion was
granted, the opposition of the Director of Lands was reinstated, and a new trial
was granted.

The petitioner herein now alleges that the order reinstating the opposition
was illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the court, for the reason that the
decree ordering the registration of the land had become final before the
presentation of said motion.

It will be noted that the Attorney-General and the Director of Lands had
received notice of the order decreeing the registration of the land in question
on the 27th and 30th of April, 1923, respectively; that the thirty days within
which the defeated party in a land registration case might appeal expired on the
30th day of May, 1923. No motion for a new trial having been made and no
objection whatever having been presented to the decision of April 21, 1923, and
no bill of exceptions having been presented, the decree was final and the lower
court was without authority to change or modify the same, except for the purpose
of correcting clerical errors.

It follows, therefore, that when the motion of the prosecuting attorney of
the Province of Cebu was presented on the 20th day of June, 1923, the lower
court was without authority to change or modify the same, except for the reasons
given in section 38 of Act No. 496.

The prosecuting attorney now asserts that he received no notice of the
decision of the lower court of April 21, 1923. Naturally, the clerk gave him no
notice of the decision for the reason that he, himself, in open court, on the
11th day of April, 1923, had retired the opposition presented by the Director of
Lands. The Attorney-General, when he filed his opposition, represented the
Director of Lands. In other words, the Director of Lands was the oppositor, the
Attorney-General represented him and the prosecuting attorney represented
the Attorney-General. When he, in open court, withdrew the opposition presented
by the Attorney-General, he withdrew the opposition presented by the Director of
Lands; and, therefore, the Attorney-General and the Director of Lands were no
longer in court; they were no longer parties to the litigation; and it must
follow, not being parties to the litigation, having voluntarily withdrawn from
the case, were not entitled to notice of the decision of the court. So far as
the record shows, at that time they had no further interest in the litigation
and were not entitled to notice. The lower court, therefore, committed no error
in not giving notice. As a matter of fact, however, both the Director of Lands
and the Attorney-General were duly notified.

The prosecuting attorney, however, must have received notice of the decision
of the lower court, at least, as early as the 20th day of June, 1923, for the
reason that on that day he presented his motion for a new trial. In his argument
opposing the petition herein, he says that “while the lower court dismissed the
opposition of Luis and Ramon Ortiz in his final decision, he did not dismiss the
opposition of the Attorney-General.” He overlooks, however, the fact that when
he presented his motion, in open court, withdrawing his opposition, that the
court then and there granted said motion and rendered a judgment against all the
world, except the opposition of Luis and Ramon Ortiz.

The prosecuting attorney further asserts in his argument in opposition to the
granting of the writ prayed for, that the withdrawal of the opposition of the
Government was a withdrawal of the opposition of the Bureau of Forestry only. In
the first place, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Bureau of
Forestry had presented any opposition to the registration of the land in
question; and, secondly, that, in open court, he “retired the opposition
presented by the Attorney-General only.”

The prosecuting attorney, in his argument against the granting of the
petition herein prayed for, further insists that inasmuch as he was the attorney
in the action that notice of the decision should have been sent to him. He
overlooks, however, the fact that he was not the attorney of record; that the
Attorney-General was the attorney of record for the oppositor, the Director of
Lands. The clerk, therefore, was justified, though not required under the facts,
in sending the notice of the decision to the Director of Lands and the
Attorney-General, the latter being the attorney for the oppositor and the other
the oppositor himself.

At the date of the decision the Director of Lands was no longer a party to
the action; notice need be sent only to the parties to the action. Our
conclusions are, therefore, (a) that at the time the motion of June 20,
1923, was presented for a new trial, the decision of the court was final and
non-appealable; and (b) that the lower court exceeded its power and
jurisdiction in granting said motion for a new trial. (U. S. vs. Court of
First Instance of Manila, 24 Phil., 321 and other cases cited; Roman Catholic
Bishop of Tuguegarao vs. Director of Lands, 34 Phil., 623; Estate of
Cordova, and Zarate vs. Alabado, 34 Phil., 920; Layda vs. Legazpi,
39 Phil., 83; Bermudez vs. Director of Lands, 36 Phil., 774.)

Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the order of the lower court
granting a new trial is hereby annulled and set aside, and it is hereby ordered
and decreed that the petition for certiorari be granted, and without any finding
as to costs, it is so ordered.

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