REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. SYLVIA DE KALINTAS, ET AL., CLAIMANTS. RICARDO DEQUITO, ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS. HEIRS OF SALVADOR LOPEZ, OPPOSITORS-APPELLEES.

Dequito versus Heirs of Salvador Lopez

The Case

This is an appeal by Ricardo Dequito and thirty-three other residents of Pagsilaan, Limot, in the Municipality of Limot, Province of Davao, against the heirs of Salvador Lopez. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to reverse a final order of the Court of First Instance of Davao that refused to give due course to their petition for review of a cadastral decree. The case matters because it settles two procedural questions that every land registration practitioner must know: first, whether a petition for review of a decree of registration is a mere amendment of an earlier motion to set aside the judgment, and second, whether such a petition may be filed in the very same cadastral proceeding rather than in a separate action.

Procedural History

The controversy began in a cadastral case before the then Justice of the Peace Court of Mati, Davao, sitting as a cadastral court upon assignment by the district judge. That court rendered a decision on 28 February 1959 awarding the lot in question to the Municipality of Mati, subject to a condition of reversion to the heirs of Salvador Lopez. On 5 December 1963, Dequito and thirty-three others filed a motion in the same case to set aside that decision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The heirs of Salvador Lopez opposed the motion. At the hearing, the movants learned that the Land Registration Commission had already issued a decree on 14 October 1963. On 23 March 1964, they moved to withdraw their motion to set aside and to amend their petition to include an alternative petition for review under Section 38 of Act Number 496, which they filed on the same date. The Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal of the motion to annul the judgment but refused to give due course to the petition for review, reasoning that it was an amendment changing the theory or cause of action, that it could not be entertained in the same proceedings because the original petition had been withdrawn, and that it had to be filed as a separate action. Unable to obtain a reconsideration, Dequito and the others appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On 28 February 1959, the Justice of the Peace Court of Mati, Davao, sitting as a cadastral court, rendered a decision awarding Lot Number 1285 of the Mati Cadastre to the Municipality of Mati, subject to the condition that it be used exclusively as an agricultural school site, and that if such use were not devoted to it within four years from the date of adjudication, the lot would revert to the owners, the heirs of Salvador Lopez.

On 5 December 1963, Ricardo Dequito and thirty-three others, residents of Pagsilaan, Limot, filed a motion to set aside that decision. They claimed to be adverse possessors under claim of title since time immemorial, who had introduced considerable permanent improvements on the lot, which the Bureau of Lands intended to subdivide in their favor. They averred that the decision was null and void for want of jurisdiction because the lot was controverted and its value exceeded five thousand pesos, because the Lopez heirs had filed no answer claiming any title or interest, because the lot was the subject of another land registration case, and because the order in that registration case was itself null and void.

At the hearing, the movants were apprised that the Registration Commission had already issued a decree on 14 October 1963. They therefore moved to withdraw their motion to set aside and to file an alternative petition for review under Section 38 of Act Number 496. The petition for review realleged the jurisdictional defects and added that the Lopez heirs had procured the decision in their favor through fraud and connivance with the Justice of the Peace, and that the property had not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value. The trial court allowed the withdrawal but refused to give due course to the petition for review.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review is a mere amendment of the motion to set aside the judgment, such that a change of theory or cause of action would bar it.
• Whether or not the petition for review may be filed and entitled in the same cadastral proceeding in which the decree of registration was entered, rather than in a separate action.
• Whether or not the question of whether the lot was uncontested and whether the petition for review was belated should be resolved by the Supreme Court in the first instance.

Applicable Provisions

Section 88 of the Judiciary Act, as amended by Republic Act Number 2613, defines the assignable jurisdiction of justices of the peace in cadastral and land registration cases:

Provided, however, That justices of the peace may, with the approval of the Secretary of Justice, be assigned by the respective district judge in each case to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the value of which does not exceed five thousand pesos, such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants, if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of real property.

This provision bears on the case because the petitioners anchor their attack on the decision on the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, the lot being controverted and its value exceeding five thousand pesos.

Section 112 of the Land Registration Act, made applicable to cadastral proceedings by Section 11 of Act Number 2259, governs where petitions and motions after original registration must be filed:

All petitions and motions after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered.

This provision is decisive on the second issue, because it expressly requires that the petition for review be filed and entitled in the original case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition for review is not properly an amendment to the previous motion to set aside the judgment, because the objectives are distinct. The review is aimed at the decree entered by the Land Registration Commission, while the motion to set aside is against the decision of the court. While the decree is a consequence of the judgment, it has a virtuality all its own, being the basis for the issuance of the certificate of title by the Register of Deeds, a result that the judgment cannot produce. Hence, not being a mere amendment, any change of theory is irrelevant. Even if the petition were taken as an amendment, the Court held that the trial court's view that it changed the cause of action or theory was not justified, because the petition restates and reproduces the grounds stated in the motion, namely the lack of jurisdiction of the court that decided the cadastral case, and the added allegation of fraudulent connivance is not incompatible with the preceding ones. The aim pursued is still the nullification of the cadastral proceedings and award, and neither pleading had as yet been heard or decided on the merits.

On the second issue, the Court held that the ruling that the petition for review cannot be filed in the same proceeding is not tenable. Section 112 of the Land Registration Act requires that all petitions and motions after original registration be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered, the purpose being to avoid confusion and difficulty in tracing the origin of the entries in the registry.

On the third issue, the Court held that the questions of whether the lot was really uncontested and whether the petition for review was belated were not passed upon by the court below, and should be threshed out there, since a correct determination can only be made by referring to and scrutinizing the record of the cadastral case, which was not before the Supreme Court.

Doctrine

A petition for review of a decree of registration is not a mere amendment of a motion to set aside the judgment, because the decree has a virtuality all its own: it is the basis for the issuance of the certificate of title, a result the judgment cannot produce. A change of theory is therefore irrelevant.

Even if treated as an amendment, a petition for review that restates the same jurisdictional grounds and adds a compatible allegation of fraud does not change the cause of action, especially where neither pleading has been heard or decided on the merits.

Under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act, as made applicable to cadastral proceedings by Section 11 of Act Number 2259, all petitions and motions after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered, to avoid confusion and difficulty in tracing the origin of the entries in the registry.

A decree of registration may be reviewed not only by reason of fraud but also for a fatal infirmity of the decision upon which the decree is based, provided no innocent purchaser for value will be prejudiced.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the appealed order of the Court of First Instance of Davao dismissing the petition for review, remanded the records to that court for further proceedings conformable to the opinion, and taxed the costs against the appellees, the heirs of Salvador Lopez.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a petition for review of a decree of registration is filed and entitled in the original case, because the decree has a virtuality all its own. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a judgment and a decree of registration, and the rule that a petition for review under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act may be filed in the same cadastral proceeding.