fROM THE nORTH OF THE wALL, BITCH
7. ROSA CRUZ, CELEDONIA CABRERA and LEONCIA CABRERA V. HON. NAVARRO, SANDOVAL | G.R. No. L-27644 | November 29, 1973
REVIEW OF THE DECREE OF REGISTRATION; FRAUD
FACTS:
Respondent Sandoval filed with the CFI Rizal an application for registration (under Act 496) of 5 parcels of land situated in the
municipality of Antipolo, province of Rizal. Respondent Judge Navarro issued a notice of initial hearing, addressed to certain
government officials (Dir of Lands, DPWH, Governor, etc.) and private persons (not the petitioners). Only the Director of Lands
filed an opposition, which was however subsequently withdrawn. Then, no oppositor having appeared, RTC declared the
respondent spouses the owners of the five parcels of land and ordered the issuance of the corresponding decree of registration.
March 20, 1967 the petitioners filed a "Petition for Review of Decree of Registration" in the court alleging the following:
o SANDOVAL willfully and falsely made it appear that he is the absolute owner of the three parcels of land, that he is in
possession of said parcels of land, and that there are no other persons who have any estate or interest, legal or
equitable, over the same, when, in truth and in fact he was never the owner, nor possessor of the said parcels of and,
because the petitioners herein are the real owners and possessors thereof (an actual extrinsic fraud);
o That actually petitioners CRUZ and the CABRERAS are the absolute owners and possessors of subject lots, originally
public lands but to which said petitioners had perfected a homestead right long before respondents secured
aforementioned decrees and certificates of title
RESPONDENT SPOUSES: moved to dismiss the petition below on the grounds (a) that if the lands in question were originally
public lands, then the proper oppositor should be the Director of Lands; and (b) that the imputed fraud does not constitute
extrinsic fraud.
RTC (JUDGE NAVARRO): denied the petition. Subsequent Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration denied, found that
applicant Sandoval had complied with all the conditions and requisites essential to a government grant pursuant to the
provisions of CA 141 as amended by RA 1942; and that petitioners’ claim of having complied with all the requisites for acquiring
a homestead patent over these lots cannot prevail over the finding of this court that the same lots are private lands over which
the Bureau of Lands has no control or authority to cede, transfer or convey in favor of homestead applicants.
ISSUE: W/N that they had sufficiently alleged the existence of actual and extrinsic fraud on the part of Sandoval.
RULING: YES
The fraud that would justify review of a decree of registration must be actual, that is, there must have been an intentional
concealment or omission of a fact required by law to be stated in the application or a willful statement of a claim against the
truth, either of which is calculated to deceive or deprive another of his legal rights.
The fraud must likewise be extrinsic. And it is extrinsic when it is employed to deprive a party of his day in court, thereby
preventing him from asserting his right to the property registered in the name of the applicant.
The instant petition sufficiently alleged facts which if proved would constitute the kind of fraud proscribed by the Land Registration
Act. This fraud consists of the allegedly intentional omission by the respondent Sandoval to properly inform the court a quo that
there were persons (the petitioners) in actual possession and cultivation of the parcels in question, with the result that the court as
well as the Chief of the Land Registration Commission were denied the exercise of their authority to require the sending of specific
individual notices of the pendency of the questioned application in accordance with the provisions of sections 31 and 32 of the Land
Registration Act. Thus, it is to be noted that the "Notice of Initial Hearing" did not contain a specific mention of the names of the
petitioners, but only those of public official and private individuals who evidently were not interested in the outcome of th e
questioned application, it then behooved the court a quo to accord the petitioners a full-blown hearing — to which they were
entitled as part of the due process guarantee — at which they could present all available evidence to prove their allegations.
HENCE, petitioners Cruz, Celedonia Cabrera and Leoncia Cabrera have alleged sufficient facts to show (a) that they have a dominical
right in the parcels of land subject of the decree of registration, and (b) that they have been deprived thereof thru actual extrinsic
fraud. That the parcels have not yet been transferred to any innocent purchaser for value, and that the petition was filed within one
year from the issuance of the decree of registration.
PETITION GRANTED.
OPTIONAL ISSUE: W/N petitioners had legal personality to file the petition for review below because even if the properties involved
were originally public land these ceased to be such upon compliance by them with the requirements essential to a homestead grant.
YES. In Mesina vs. Pineda vda. de Sonza this Court, citing Susi vs. Razon, held that once a homestead applicant has complied with all
the conditions essential to a Government grant, he acquires "not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government." Thus,
where all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government are complied with through actual physical possession openly,
continuously, and publicly, with a right to a certificate of title to said land under the provisions of Act No. 2874, amending Act No.
926 (carried over as CA 141), the possessor is deemed to have already acquired by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a
grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that a certificate of title be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the
courts — an application therefor being sufficient.
Petitioners have amply alleged such real, legally protected interest over the parcels in question sufficient to clothe them with the
necessary personality to question, independently of the Director of Lands, the validity of the grant of title over the said properties to
the private respondents.
