MIGUEL LANZONA (DECEASED) AND ILUMINADA E. LANZONA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND EMILIO ALVAREZ, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision dated June 16, 1982 of the Intermediate
Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in CA-G.R. No. 52469-R, entitled:

EL DIRECTOR DE
TERRENOS,

Peticionario,

– contra –

TIMOTEO ABARCA, ET AL.,
Reclamantes,

MIGUEL N. LANZONA
and

ILUMINADA E.
LANZONA,

Petitioners-Appellees,

– versus –

EMILIO ALVAREZ,
Respondent-Appellant

reversing the order dated August 26, 1972
of the Court of First Instance of Davao (now Regional
Trial Court), in Cadastral Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. Cad. Rec. No. 317, Lot No. 384 which set aside its own
earlier decision dated October 1, 1940 in the same case (but penned by the
previous incumbent, Judge Enrique Fernandez), declaring Constancio
Guzman (predecessor-in-interest of herein respondent Emilio Alvarez), to be the
owner of Lot 384.  The trial court
annulled the decree of registration and O.C.T. No. Q-217 issued to Guzman and
ordered the issuance of a new title in the names of the petitioners, Miguel N. Lanzona
and Iluminada Lanzona.

The antecedent facts are:

On October 1, 1940, the Court of First Instance of Davao, presided over by Judge Enrique Fernandez, rendered a
decision adjudicating Lot No. 384, to Constancio
Guzman in which it mentioned an earlier decision of the Supreme Court thus:

“x x
x en la decision dictada
en esta causa, el Tribunal Suprema, no ha hecho mencion sobre la propriedad de las mejores dentro de este terreno, no obstante, admite que Ines Labarca
entre en el mismo hacia el año 1819 decision marcada exhibito ‘B’ – C. Guzman;
que Ines Labarca es dueña
de las mejores existentes dentro del Lote 384, consistentes en 2,100 grupos de abaca, 250 arbustos de
coco, 118 arbutos de cafe, 100 grupos
del platanos, 25 arbutos de
bongga, 3 ponos de durian y
un pono de macupa avalocados en P2,230.00, declaracion
de propriedad, marcada Exhibito ‘1’ – Lotes Nos. 383 y 384 – Ines Labarca; que Constancio
Bolcan es dueño de 98 arbustos de coco, 100
grupos de abaca y 20 ponos
de platanos sembrado dentro del mismo Lote No. 384, declaracion de propriedad marcado Exhibito ‘1’, Lote No. 384 C. Bolcan.” (p. 45, Rollo.)

Constancio Bolcan
appealed Judge Fernandez’s decision to the Court of Appeals but upon the
outbreak of the war, all the records of the case were destroyed, both in the
Court of First Instance of Davao and in the Appellate
Court.  The records of the case were
never reconstituted.

On December 15, 1967, a decree of registration and Original
Certificate of Title No. Q-217 were issued by the Land Registration Commission
and the Register of Deeds for Davao City,
respectively, in favor of Guzman.

The petitioners Lanzona who had
allegedly acquired the rights over the land and improvements existing thereon
from Constancio Bolcan
since 1942 and allegedly had been in possession of the said land for a period
of more than twenty-five (25) years as exclusive owners, filed a petition for
review of the decree of registration on the ground of fraud in its issuance.

On March 4, 1968, the private respondent, Emilio Alvarez, as
successor-in-interest of Guzman, opposed the petition for review. He alleged
that Judge Fernandez’s decision, dated October 1, 1940, had long become final
and executory, hence, it could no longer be set aside
or reviewed; that Original Certificate of Title No. Q-217 in favor of Constancio Guzman was validly issued based on existing
records of the Land Registration Commission (p. 48, Rollo).

As previously stated, the Court of First Instance of Davao, acting as a land registration court, ruled in favor
of the petitioners.

However, in its decision dated June 10, 1982, the Appellate Court
reversed the appealed judgment as follows:

“WHEREFORE, finding the trial court committed the errors
imputed to it by appellant, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and
another one entered dismissing the petition for review of the decree of
registration for lack of merit – thus by this pronouncement, Decree No.
N-118060 and Original Certificate of Title No. Q-217 of the Registry of Deeds
of Davao City in the name of Constancio
Guzman issued pursuant to the said decree are declared legal and valid for all
intents and purposes.  Without
pronouncement as to costs.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 62, Rollo.)

A petition for review was filed in due time in this Court by Lanzona.

The question to be determined is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding for respondent
Alvarez and in finding that there was no fraud in the issuance of the decree of registration for Lot No. 384
and of Certificate of Title No. Q-217, in the name of Constancio
Guzman, Alvarez’s predecessor-in-interest, based on the unreconstituted
pre-war decision of Judge Enrique Fernandez in his favor.

The petition is
devoid of merit.

Whether or not fraud exists is a factual issue which we may not review under Rule 45.  In any event, the respondent Court of Appeals did not commit a reversible error in finding that there
was no fraud in the rendition of Judge Fernandez’s
decision although he relied, among other evidences in the records, on a
decision of the Supreme Court which was not certified to be true and
correct.  The appellate court correctly
ruled that:

 “x x
x the argument that because the decision of the
Supreme Court which was relied upon by the trial court in granting registration
was not certified to be true and correct, fraud was committed justifying the petition for the review of the
decree of registration, is
plainly an error of judgment or at
the most error in the appreciation
and the admission of an evidence.  There
is no fraud, much less the fraud contemplated by Section 38 of Act 496, as
ground for the petition for a review of the decree.” (p. 51, Rollo.)

On the finality of Judge Fernandez’s unreconstituted pre-war decision, we also agree with
the finding of the Court of
Appeals that:

“Anent the status of the decision dated October 1, 1940 of the
late Judge Enrique Fernandez, after going over the evidence in this case, We
are of the considered opinion that the same has become final.  The allegation that the same was duly
appealed to Us and the appeal perfected was not satisfactorily substantiated.
At any rate, even admitting that the decision was appealed, as unfortunately
the records were destroyed during the last World War, the duty to reconstitute
the appeal falls on the appellant (the predecessor-in-interest of the appellees)
and the appellees themselves in behalf of their predecesor-in-interest. 
The failure to institute the reconstitution proceedings by the party
most interested to up-end the decision should be interpreted as an abandonment
of the appeal and a clear indication of lack of interest and this abandonment
made the decision final.  This being the
case, a copy of the decision having been shown to exist, reconstitution of the
decision is not necessary or,
otherwise stated, it was error for the trial court to hold that the decision of
October 1, 1940 has lost its force and effect and that said decision should be
reconstituted by means of an authentic copy and, if this cannot be done, the
trial court is empowered to make a new
decision.  We again have to agree with the appellant in his argument that
Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules
of Court is not applicable to land registration proceedings x x x.” (p. 52, Rollo.)

The petitioners’ claim of ownership by acquisitive prescription
or by virtue of alleged continuous and undisturbed possession of the disputed
lot, clearly raises factual issues.  The
finding of the appellate court that “the evidence of the petitioners do
not show that the parcel of land which they purchased from Constancio
Bolcan is the
same Lot No. 384 covered by O.C.T. Q-217″ is a factual finding which is
binding on us, especially because the Court discussed the evidence supporting
it.  It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such
evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of
law that might have been committed by the lower court (Evangelista & Co. v.
Abad Santos, 51 SCRA 416).

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of
merit.  The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court in CA G.R. No. 52469-R
is affirmed in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Acting C.J., Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.