BASILIA CLEMENTE AND HER HUSBAND, ANGEL PICHAY, PETITIONERS, VS. CAYETANO LUKBAN, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TARLAC, AND FORTUNATO DOMINGO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner,
Basilia Clemente, alleging in substance that on July 30, 1924, in cadastral case
No. 37 of the Province of Tarlac, the Court of First Instance adjudicated to her
lot No. 10642; that by virtue of the judgment, a final decree for the lot was
entered on January 8, 1927, and a certificate of title issued to her on the same
day; that one year and four months after the entry of the final decree, the
respondent Fortunato Domingo filed a motion in said cadastral case for the
reopening of the decree in regard to the aforesaid lot No. 10642; that the
respondent judge, in a resolution dated June 7, 1928, granted said motion and,
setting aside the decision of July 30, 1924, in regard to said lot, ordered a
new trial; that upon being informed of said resolution, the petitioner filed a
motion in the Court of First Instance asking that the proceedings for the
reopening of the case be annulled and set aside on the ground that the motion
for a new trial presented by the respondent Fortunato Domingo was filed too late
and was barred under the provisions of section 38 of the Land Registration Act,
but that the respondent judge persisted in proceeding with the new trial. The
petitioner therefore prays that a writ of certiorari issue and that, upon
hearing, the resolution of the respondent judge, granting a new trial, be
declared null and void and beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

The respondents in their answer allege that the petitioner
obtained the decree of the registration of the aforesaid lot No. 10642 through
fraud; that the respondent Fortunato Domingo is the real owner of the lot and is
in possession thereof; that the petitioner brought an action in ejectment
against him in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac and that said action was
decided in favor of the respondent Fortunato Domingo and against the petitioner
herein; that the petitioner well knew that the lot in question was the property
of the respondent Fortunato Domingo and that it had been adjudicated to him
prior to the land registration proceedings.

The respondents further allege that Fortunato Domingo in March,
1924, filed a claim for lot No. 10642 in cadastral case No. 37 and that in the
month of May of the same year made proof of his ownership of said lot before the
deputy clerk, Guillermo Matulac Recio, who had been appointed referee by Judge
Mariano Rosauro, the presiding judge in the cadastral case; that later on he
found to his surprise that the certificate of title had been issued in favor of
the herein petitioner; that upon investigation it was found that his answer or
claim, as well as the title documents filed an the aforesaid cadastral case in
regard to said lot, had disappeared and that in the memorandum of the judge in
regard to the lot, the name of Fortunato Domingo did not appear.

Assuming that the respondents, in their answer, have told the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, it is, nevertheless, obvious that the
respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in reopening the final decree one
year and four months after it was entered; section 38 of the Land Registration
Act provides that “such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence,
infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any
proceeding in any court for reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to
the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by
decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the Court of Land
Registration a petition for review within one year after entry of the decree,
provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest. If there is
any such purchaser, the decree of registration shall not be opened, but shall
remain in full force and effect forever, subject only to the right of appeal
herein before provided. But any person aggrieved by such decree in any case may
pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other
person for fraud in procuring the decree.”

The proper remedy of the respondent claimant of the land is to
bring an action against the herein petitioner for a transfer or conveyance of
the title or for damages. (Land Registration Act, sec. 55; Severino vs.
Severino, 44 Phil., 343; Jalandoni vs. Carballo, 48 Phil., 857; Estrellado and
Alcantara vs. Martinez, 48 Phil, 256.)

The petition is granted, and the proceedings for the reopening
of the aforesaid final decree are hereby declared null and void and beyond the
jurisdiction of the respondent judge, without prejudice to the right of the
respondent claimant to bring an action for a transfer of the title to the land
in question or for damages. No costs will be allowed in the present case. So
ordered.

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