JOSE E, COLLADO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of a decision rendered by the Court
of Appeals reversing the one rendered by the court a qpo which ordered
Nicomedes Copiat, et al. to vacate the two lots in question and deliver
their possession to spouses. Jose E. Qollado and Aurora Provide as
registered owners thereof, together with the improvements existing
thereon, without pronouncement as to costs.

The lots above-referred to were registered under the cadastatl law
in the name of spouses Pedro Aventura and Anaeleta Galan in whose favor
Original Certificate of Title No. Cr-153 was issued in pursuance of a
decision rendered on January 26, 1951 in Cadastral Case No. 88
(G.L.R.O. Record No. 1565). Shortly after the issuance of said title,
the spouses sold the two’ lots to Jose E. Collado and Aurora Provido
for the sum of P4,000.00 through the intervention of Atty. Elias Recto
and his father-in-law Adriano Coronado.

Before said sale was effected, Collado requested that lie, be
allowed to see the title of the lands and to that effect he was told to
go to the office of Atty.’Recto who was the counsel of the vendors. In
said office Collado as shown the title of the lands which on its face
appeared free from all liens and meumbrances. He was also gftown the
decision of the cadastral judge-adjudicating the lots in-favor of
spouses Pedro Aventura and Anacleta Galan.

Collado told the sellers that,he %vanted to see the lands, himself
and he was readily obliged. Collado saw on the lands Nicomedes Copiat
and when he inquired why he was there Anacleta Galari answered that he
was one of her tenants. Coronado told Nicomedes Copiat that Collado was
buying the lands but he did not say anything so that Collado’s belief
that Copiat was Galan’s tenant was strengthened. Collado decided to buy
the lands. The deed of sale was prepared and in pursuance thereof the
title of the sellers was cancelled and in lieu thereof another title
was issued in the name of Jose Collado and Aurora Provido. However,
three months after the sale,. Collado found out for the first time that
there were other persons who claimed to be the owners of the lands.
Hence, they commenced’ the present action before the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo praying that they be declared owners, of the lands ‘
with right of possession and that the defendants be ordered, to pay
damages and attorney’s fees. After trial, the court rendered judgment
as stated in the early part of this, decision.

In reversing the decision of the court a quo,, the Court of Appeals said in its dispositive part of the following:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision
in the instant” case is set aside and the, registration decree in
Cadastral Case No. 8S,;G.JJ.B.O. Cad. Record No. 1566, in so far as, it
relates’ to Lots No. ,2453 and 2456, Original Certificate of Title No.
C-153. and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1H00 covering- said lots,
are declared null and void. The court a quo is ordered to give due
course to the answers filed by the plaintiffs and defendants-appellants
in said cadastral ease and, after hearing and presentation of evidence
on the part of the claimants, to ‘ render the corresponding- decision.”

Petitioners now claim that the Court of Appeals erred in holding
that they acted in bad faith in purchasing the lands in question and,
consequently, in declaring null and void the decree entered in
Cadastral Case No. 88 (G.L.R.O. Record No. 1565) insofar as the two
parcels of land are-concerned, ; as well as the two certificates of
title subsequently issued invoking the principle that a decree of
registration cannot be collaterally attacked.

With regard to the claim that the Court of Appeals erred in
considering petitioners as purchasers in bad faith, suffice, it for us
to quote the following findings of said Court:

“The combination of the following- facts and
circumstances induco us to conclude that in the. procurement of
Original Certificate of Title No. C-153 (Exh. B), an th« execution of
the deed of sale (Exli. C) twenty-five days after the issuance of said
certificate, and in the ,issuance three days later’of the corresponding
Transfer Certificate- of Title No. 11100 (Exh. D) in favor of the
herein plaintiffs-appellees, the spouses Pedro Aventura and Anacleta
Galan acted fraudulently;

* * * * * * *

“Are the plaintiffs-appellants purchasers in good faith and for a
valuable consideration? We do not believe they arc, because in November
1951, Jose Collado. accompanied by nolicemen, visited the lands in
question and said that he was planning to buy them f rom Pedro
Aventura. They found defendants-appellants cultivating the same-, saw
their plantings, their houses and their families. After they were told
that the lands belonged to the Copiats and ldid not belong to any
Aventura, they left. So when Galan represented her husband and filed
the latter’s. answers, in the cadastral ease, -Collado was already
aware of appellants’ claim of possession and ownership.

“Moreover, we. believe that plaintiffs-appellees had
connived for . the purpose of depriving the defendants Copiat of the
latter’s . inheritance because—* * *.”

The above findings of fact cannot now be looked into. They are
conclusive” upon this Court considering, well-known authorities on the
matter.

Anent the question that the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the
decree of registration entered in the cadastral case as well as the
certificates of title subsequently issued pursuant thereto, the record
discloses the following facts: On December 29, 1945, Pedro Aventura,
thru his wife Anacleta Galan filed their answer claiming the lots in
question in the cadastral ease. On January 26, 1951, decision was
rendered in their favor. On September 12, an order was issued for the
issuance of the decree. On

October, 20, Original Certificate of Title No. C-153 in favor of
spouses Pedro Aventura and Anacleta Galan was issued. On November 15,
the lots were sold by said spouses ‘ to Jose Collado and his wife. On
November 19, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11100 was issued in
favor of spouses Collado. On December 17, Nieomedes Copiat, et al.
filed their petition for review, which they supplemented on January 8,
1952. On May 26, they filed their answer. On May 28, the cadastral
court suspended the proceedings for review until Civil Case No. 2408
(the case now before us) is definitely decided.

From the foregoing facts it appears clear that respondents herein
filed their petition for review in the cadastral case within the period
of one year from the issuance of the decree. The cadastral court could
have proceeded then and there to hear said petition on the merits but
deferred action thereon to await the final outcome of the case
instituted by petitioners herein. It is for this reason that the Court
of Appeals, in reversing the decision of the court a, quo, ordered that
the petition for review be given due course and after due hearing and
presentation of evidence judgment be rendered as the same may warrant.
Upon the foregoing facts, it cannot therefore be successfully contended
that the decree of registration issued in the cadastral case has been
collaterally attacked and that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring
its nullification. On this point, we agree with the following findings
pf the Court of Appeals: ‘

“The attack made by the defendants-appellants on the
Original Certificate of Title No: C-153 and Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 11100 is not a collateral attack for the petitions for the
reopening or review of the decree of registration were presented in the
cadastral case itself and within the period provided for in Section 3S
of Act 496, as amended, and in conformity with the doctrine laid down
by our Hon. Supreme Court in the case of De los Reyes ¦us. De Villa, 48
Phil. 227. < We must not lose sight of the fart that in the order
Exhibit 16 issued by the Court of First Instance of lloilo, acting as a
cadastral court, thru the Honr Roman Ibanez on the motion for review
presented by the defendants-appellants tlie proceedings on the incident
were suspended until Civil Case No; 2403 of the Court was definitely
decided. The civil action in said cage was commenced for the purpose of
recovering the possession of the very land in question. The courts of
justice cannot serve as instruments for the commission, of injustice to
all of those who come to it for protection and redress.”

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioners.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Coneepci6n, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Malcalintal, JJ., concur.