PEDRO AVENTURA AND ANACLETA GALAN, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. PANTALEON A. PELAYO, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO, ROMAN PORTAJE, ESPERIDION ADELANTE, MARGARITA ADELANTE, A…

In Cadastral Case No. 88, G.L.R.O. Record No. 1565 of the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo, Pedro Aventura and Esperidion Adelante both
filed cadastral answers or claims over Lot No. 2457, located in
Janiuay, Iloilo. When the case was called for hearing on November 8,
1951, claimant Adelante failed to appear and an order of default was
entered against him. On April 18, 1952, evidence for claimant Aventura
was received by the Court; on April 24, 1952, Judge Roman Ibañez
rendered judgment adjudicating Lot No. 2457 to Aventura; and on
November 24, 1952, the Court ordered that the corresponding decree of
registration be issued.

On February 11, 1953, a certain Roman Portaje, who did not file any
answer or claim over Lot No. 2457, filed, through counsel Attorney P.
Peñaredondo, a “Petition for Review of Judgment and Petition for Ocular
Inspection”. Consideration of this petition was indefinitely postponed.
In the meantime, the decree of registration in favor of claimant Pedro
Aventura was entered by the General Land Registration Office on April
17, 1953; and on May 19, 1953, Original Certificate of Title covering
said Lot No. 2457 was issued in his name.

On June 22, 1953, adjudicatee Aventura filed with the Court, a
“Motion for a Writ of Possession” of Lot No. 2547. On July 18, 1953,
claimant Espiridion Adelante for the first time appeared again in the
case, also through Attorney P. Peñaredondo, and opposed the motion for
writ of possession. On July 18, 1953, the court, through Judge
Makalintal, set the petition for review of Portaje and the motion for
writ of possession of adjudicatee Aventura for hearing on August 1,
1953. On July 28, 1953, Aventura filed his opposition to the petition
for review of Portaje. On July 31, 1953, claimant Adelante filed a
reply to Aventura’s opposition, as well as a motion to amend their
answer and petition for review of judgment and ocular inspection. This
last motion was duly opposed by Aventura.

After a hearing of the several pending motions and oppositions in
the case, the Court, through Judge Makalintal, issued, on October 20,
1953, an order denying Portaje’s petition of February 9, 1953 asking
for the review of judgment and ocular inspection, as well as his
amended petitions of July 31, 1953, Attorney Peñaredondo, as counsel
for the Adelantes, having filed, on October 24, 1953, a motion for the
reconsideration of the order of October 20, said motion was denied by
Judge Makalintal in the following order of November 18, 1953:

“The claimants Petra and Esperidion, all surnamed
Adelante, as well as Roman Portaje and his wife Margarita Adelante,
thru Atty. P. Peñaredondo, have filed a motion dated October 24, 1953
asking for reconsideration of the order of October 20, deyning their
petition for review of the judgment pursuant to Section 38 of Act 496.
It appears from the record that Esperidion Adelante filed a cadastral
answer to the lot in question. Pedro Aventura was another claimant, he
having filed another answer in his name. On November 8, 1951, the case,
was called for hearing and in view of the non-appearance of Espiridion
Adelante the Court (Judge Roman Ibañez, presiding) issued an order
declaring him in default and commissioning the Clerk of Court to
receive the evidence. On November 12, 1951, Adelante filed a motion
asking that the order of default be lifted, but so far as the record
shows the said motion was never resolved. On April 18, 1952 the
commissioner appointed by the Court received the evidence for the
claimant Pedro Aventura, and on the following April 24 the Court
rendered its decision adjudicating the lot in question to him.

“Esperidion
Adelante for the first time filed his pleading herein after the
judgment, in the form of an opposition to the motion for a writ of
possession of Pedro Aventura, which opposition was submitted on July
15, 1953. Even then Esperidion Adelante did not ask for a review of the
judgment, the petition to that effect having been filed on February 11,
1953 not by him but by Roman Portaje, who does not appear to have any
interest in the land he not having filed any cadastral answer herein.

“But
even granting that the opposition of Esperidion Adelante to the
petition for a writ of possession submitted by adjudicatee, Pedro
Aventura, is in the nature of a petition for review under Section 38 of
Act 496, the same cannot be granted, because a review of the decree
under that legal provision is available only on the ground of fraud,
which has been interpreted to mean actual fraud, that is intentional
deception or downright dishonesty of some sort. No such deception or
dishonesty can be ascribed to the adjudicatee Pedro Aventura simply
because he filed a cadastral answer herein claiming to be the owner of
the property applied for.

“Nor may the petition of Adelante
be considered as a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of
the Rules of Court inasmuch as none of the grounds provided for therein
has been alleged and, furthermore, more than six (6) months had elapsed
since the decision herein was rendered.

“With reference to
the petition for a review filed by Roman Portaje, the same is without
merit, because he was never a party herein and has never filed a
cadastral answer.

“WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied.”

On December 10, 1953, Attorney Penaredondo, in behalf of the
claimants Adelantes and of Portaje, again submitted a motion for
reconsideration and petition for review, which was later amended on
January 8, 1954 in a motion entitled “Amended Motion for
Reconsideration and Amended Petition for Review and Motion to Lift the
Writ of Possession”. This amended motion and petition Aventura
accordingly opposed, and on January 19, 1954, the Court, through Judge
Ibañez, denied the amended motion for reconsideration of January 8,
1954 for lack of merit.

On February 5, 1954, counsel for the Adelantes filed a motion to
lift the writ of possession and to give due course to the amended
petition for review of judgment. Aventura opposed the motion on the
same day. This motion was again denied by Judge Ibañez on February 16,
1954 for lack of merit.

It appears, though, that before the Court issued its order of denial
of February 16, 1954 aforesaid, Attorney Peñaredondo had again
submitted in behalf of the Adelantes, on February 11, 1954, another
motion entitled “Motion to Put Up Bond and to Lift Order of the Writ of
Possession”, claiming, inter alia, that the Court had not yet
passed upon the additional grounds for review of decree presented in
movants’ amended petition for review of January 8, 1954. This last
motion Judge Ibanez set for hearing on March 19, 1954 “por razones de
equidad y justicia”. Aventura sought to reconsider the order of hearing
but failed. The scheduled hearing was continued from March 19, 1954 to
May 21, 1954 and thence to June 17, 1954. The record does not show,
however, that any hearing’ was held, as scheduled, on June 17, 1954,
because Cadastral Judge Roman Ibañez was legislated out of office by
Republic Act No. 1186.

Three years later, on June 16, 1957, adjudicatee Pedro Aventura and
his wife Anacleta Galan filed in the case a “petition to terminate
proceedings”, raising the Question of lack of jurisdiction of the Court
to further act in the case. Said petition was ordered stricken off the
record “for being unnecessary” by Judge Pantaleon Pelayo. Whereupon,
Aventura and his wife Galan moved on September 3, 1957 “to set aside
court’s order of March 11, 1954 and to issue order for the enforcement
of the writ of possession”. Judge Pelayo denied this motion and ordered
the clerk of court to set the case for hearing as soon as possible.
Then, on February 17, 1958, petitioners Aventura submitted a “Petition
for the Annulment of the Orders of May 5, 1954, May 20, 1954 and
September 16, 1957″ for lack of jurisdiction”. Again Judge Pelayo
denied this petition and ordered the case scheduled for hearing with
notice to all the parties.

Claiming that Judge Pelayo’s order of March 18, 1958 is void for
having been issued without or in excess of the court’s jurisdiction,
since more than five years have elapsed from the entry of the decree of
registration in their favor, the adjudicatee Pedro Aventura and his
wife Anacleta Galan presented the present petition for certiorari
before this Court to annul said order.

We think the petition should be granted, for the following reasons:

First. There appears no further necessity for the lower
court to hear respondents Adelantes’ “Motion to Put Up Bond and to Lift
Order of the Writ of Possession” of February 13, 1954, the only
incident, that the respondent Judge in his answer claims was set for
hearing in his questioned order of March 18, 1958. Note that this
motion of the Adelantes simply reiterates their motion to lift the writ
of possession issued in favor of petitioners, which had already been
previously denied several times by Judges Makalintal and Ibañez. It is
true that the motion also alleges that the court had not yet ruled on
the additional grounds for a review of the decree presented by the
Adelantes in their petition of January 8, 1953 (should be 1954), and
urges that said grounds should be passed upon. This second claim is,
however, likewise untenable, because in his order of January 19, 1954,
Judge Ibanez denied the Adelantes’ motion for reconsideration of
January 8, 1954 for lack of merit, and as their amended petition for
review, with its supposed additional grounds, was embodied in the same
pleading of January 8, 1954, denial of the pleading must have been in
its entirety; that is, denial of the motion for reconsideration of the
writ of possession included as well as denial of the amended petition
for review. This denial by Judge Ibanez of the amended petition for
review of respondents Adelantes was reiterated and confirmed when he
issued his subsequent order of February 16, 1954, also denying for lack
of merit the Adelantes’ motion of February 5, 195

Second. Denial by Judge Ibanez on February 16, 1956 of
respondents Adelantes’ motion to give due course to their amended
petition for review also implies that there has been no amended
petition for review validly and properly filed in the case from
February 16, 1954 up to the present. Indeed, after their first petition
for review was denied by Judge Makalintal, respondents Adelantes could
not have filed a second petition for review without leave of court, and
this they admitted when they sought court authority to give due course
to their amended petition. From the time their motion of February 5,
1954, to give due course to their amended petition, was denied by Judge
Ibanez on February 16, 1954, respondents Adelantes never took any other
steps to have their amended petition admitted. Not having been admitted
by the Court, their amended petition for review did not interrupt the
running of the one-year period for the review of the decree in favor of
petitioners entered on April 17, 1953. When the respondent judge, in
his order of March 18, 1958, set the Adelantes’ motion of February 13,
1954 for hearing, therefore, the period of one year within which the
decree of registration in the case may be attacked for review had long
elapsed. Thus, the hearing set by the respondent judge to determine
whether or not the court should rule on respondents Adelantes’ amended
petition for review would not serve any useful purpose, because the
decree in favor of petitioners had already become final and
indefeasible (Section 38, Act 496) and may no longer be modified,
altered, or set aside (Director of Lands vs. Gutierrez David, 50 Phil., 707; Cabanos vs. Register of Deeds, 40 Phil., 620).

Third. Even assuming that respondent Adelantes could have filed an amended petition for review (i.e., a second
petition for review because their first had already been denied)
without leave of court and that, therefore, their amended or second
petition was deemed filed for the consideration of the court on the
date it was submitted on January 8, 1954, respondents Adelantes have
nowhere shown that said amended or second petition was based on actual
fraud (the only ground upon which a petition for review may be filed
under Section 38, Act 496), or that the additional grounds alleged
therein did not exist when their first petition was filed.^[1]
As a matter of fact, respondents Adelantes have not even made said
amended or second petition part of the records of this case, so that we
have no way of determining whether the same was based on proper and
acceptable grounds. In view of this failure of respondents either to
copy said petition into the records, or to explain the grounds thereof
and the time they arose, it would be safe to assume that said petition
was but a reiteration of the first,^[2]
or the same is founded on grounds that were available at the time of
the filing of the first petition, and consequently, it is in the
category of a pro forma petition that did not interrupt the
running of the one-year period after which petitioners’ decree had
become conclusive and incontrovertible. For this reason, the hearing
scheduled by the respondent judge would be but a superfluity and merely
waste the valuable time of the court.

Fourth. Finally, respondents Adelantes have been guilty of
laches in the prosecution of their motion of February 13, 1954 (the one
set by the respondent judge for hearing) and may therefore, be
considered to have abandoned and withdrawn the same. Being the parties
interested in said motion, it was incumbent upon them to take the
initiative and exercise diligence in seeing that said motion was
promptly heard and resolved. But for three years respondents showed no
further interest in said motion, and had not petitioners filed their
petition to terminate the proceedings in June, 1957, respondents would
not have awakened from their lethargy and called said motion to the
attention of the court. It would do violence both to the dominant
purpose of the Registration Act to render registered titles conclusive
and indefeasible after one year as well as the need to expedite the
disposal of cases and prevent the clogging of court dockets, to still
hear said motion after respondents Adelantes had failed to prosecute
the same for an unreasonable length of time.

All in all, we believe the respondent judge acted in grave abuse of
discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction, in issuing his order
of March 18, 1958 setting respondents’ motion of February 11, 1954 for
hearing. As petitioners’ decree and title have, by this time, become
final, conclusive, and indefeasible, there is nothing more left to be
done in the case except to finally close and terminate these
registration proceedings.

Wherefore, the order in question is set aside, and another one shall
be entered ordering the final closure of Cadastral Case No. 88,
G.L.R.O. Record No. 1565, with respect to Lot No. 2457 of the January,
Iloilo Cadastre. Costs against respondents Esperidion Adelante, et al.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] The settled rule is that
grounds existing when a first motion attacking a pleading or proceeding
was filed but not included therein are deemed waived and cannot be set
up again in a second motion (Sec. 8 Rule 26, Rules of Court). This
principle may be applied by analogy to land registration proceedings
(Rule 132, supra).

^[2] This is not
improbable, since respondents Adelantes had in this case indulged in
the undesirable practice of filing repetitious motions for
reconsideration and for the lifting of the writ of possession.