MARTIN GONZALEZ, APPLICANT AND APPELLEE, VS. SISENANDO TURLA ET AL., OPPOSITORS. SISENANDO TURLA, APPELLANT.

In July, 1918, one Martin Gonzalez filed an application for the registration
of a large tract of land situated in the municipality of Lubao, Province of
Pampanga. Shortly afterwards, Sisenando Turla, the herein appellant, applied for
the registration in his favor of a portion embracing 49 hectares of the tract
mentioned. Aside from this parcel, Turla also claimed another parcel in the
northwestern part of the Gonzalez land, but had not applied for its
registration.

The two applications for registration were tried together, and upon the
evidence, the Court of First Instance denied the application of Sisenando Turla
and ordered the registration of the land in favor of Martin Gonzalez. Turla
appealed from, the denial of his application, and upon an examination of the
record of the case, the judgment of the court below was set aside as to the
parcel described in the appellant’s application, and the parcel was registered
in favor of Turla in the year 1922.3 In the meantime, one Ponciano Mauricio laid
claim to a large portion of the so-called lot No. 2 of the land of Martin
Gonzalez, but the Court of First Instance refused to reopen the case. Mauricio
thereafter instituted mandamus proceedings in this court, and a writ was issued,
and the case was remanded to the court below for the hearing of the opposition
of Ponciano Mauricio.^[1]The Court of First Instance again adjudged the land to
Gonzalez, and Ponciano Mauricio appealed. Notwithstanding the fact that the
unregistered parcel claimed by Turla was a part of lot No. 2, he failed to
appeal after the new trial, being under the impression that his former appeal
was sufficient.

After lengthy discussions, this court on December 31, 1927, modified the
judgment of the court below and ordered the registration of the land in favor of
Gonzalez, including the parcel claimed by Turla.^[2]

On January 17, 1928, Turla filed a motion asking that the decision be
modified so that the portion of the land in dispute between him and the
applicant, Martin Gonzalez, be excepted from the effects of said decision, and
that the trial court be ordered to take the necessary steps. This motion was
denied, the court being without jurisdiction to order the court below to permit
another appeal in the case, and the time for granting such appeal having expired
long before.

The final decree for the registration of the aforesaid lot No. 2 was issued
in favor of Gonzalez on October 31, 1928, and on July 15, 1929, Sisenando Turla
filed a motion in the Court of First Instance praying that the decree be
reversed and that he be given opportunity to again present his evidence. The
motion was denied, and Turla thereupon appealed to this court.

The appeal is, in our opinion, of no merit. A review of a final decree can
only be accomplished under section 38 of the Land Registration Act and must rest
on fraud on the part of the person or persons in whose favor the decree has been
issued. That is not the case here. As far as the record shows, Gonzalez did not
obtain the decree by fraud, and the court below did not err in denying the
review. We may say further that the failure of Sisenando Turla to present his
appeal in time, was his own fault; without such appeal this court was not in
position to reverse the judgment of the court below as far as Turla was
concerned. Moreover, taking into consideration his clearly untrue testimony
while a witness for Ponciano Mauricio, this court would hardly have disturbed
the conclusions of the trial court notwithstanding an appeal.

The decision of the court below is affirmed with the costs against the
appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez
and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

^[2] 53 Phil., 728.