Scribd
Upload
185 views2 pages

40 Morales v. Paredes, 55 Phil 565 PDF

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that a petition for review under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act can only be filed after the final decree has been issued. The Court cited a previous case, Rivera vs. Moran, that interpreted Section 38 to mean a petition can be filed before expiration of one year from the entry of the decree. The Court also found an indication in another case, Plurad vs. Alcade, that a review requires a final decree to have been issued first was merely obiter dictum that was not binding and should not be regarded as an adjudication. Therefore, the plaintiff's view that Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure was the proper remedy was erroneous, and the

Uploaded by

Gil Paterno G. Mendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
185 views2 pages

40 Morales v. Paredes, 55 Phil 565 PDF

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that a petition for review under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act can only be filed after the final decree has been issued. The Court cited a previous case, Rivera vs. Moran, that interpreted Section 38 to mean a petition can be filed before expiration of one year from the entry of the decree. The Court also found an indication in another case, Plurad vs. Alcade, that a review requires a final decree to have been issued first was merely obiter dictum that was not binding and should not be regarded as an adjudication. Therefore, the plaintiff's view that Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure was the proper remedy was erroneous, and the

Uploaded by

Gil Paterno G. Mendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Morales v.

Paredes, 55 Phil 565, December 29, 1930


Ticker Obiter dictum,
Doctrine An o biter dic tum is a n opini on express ed by a cou rt
upon som e qu estion of la w whi ch is n ot nece ssa ry to
the de cisi on of th e cas e b efo r e i t.
Facts  P edro , R o sen do , a n d P ru den ci o Ga vi no a ppli ed fo r
th e regi stra ti o n o f a pa rcel o f la n d . It wa s gra n ted
o n Ju n e 2 3 , 1 93 0 .
 Ba l ta za r Mo ral es n o w cla i ms to be th e o wn er o f th e
l a n d. He th ereu po n fil ed a mo ti o n o n September 1 8
i n th e Co u rt o f Fi rst In sta n ce o f P an ga sin a n fo r th e
reco n si dera ti o n o f th e deci si o n o f Ju n e 23 .
 W i th ou t di smi ssal o f th e mo ti o n men ti o n ed, th e
mo va n t bro u gh t th e presen t a cti o n pra yi n g tha t th e
a fo resa i d deci si o n be set a si de a n d th a t a n ew tri a l
be gra n ted i n a cco rda n ce wi th secti o n 51 3 of th e
C o de o f C i vi l P ro cedu re, bu t t h e pro p er re med y i s to
peti ti o n fo r a revi ew u n der secti o n 3 8 o f th e Lan d
R egi stra ti o n Act
 Th e pl a in ti ff a rgu ed th a t su ch revi ew ca n no t be h a d
u n til th e fin al decree h a s been i ssu ed.

Issue Whether or not the plaintiff can petition a review under 38 of the
Land Registration Act before the final decree is issued
Supreme  In th e ca se o f Ri vera vs. Mo ra n (4 8 P hi l ., 8 36 ), th e
Court co u rt sa i d, “Secti o n 3 8 o f th e Lan d R egi stra ti o n Act
pro vi des th a t a peti ti o n fo r revi ew o f su ch a decree
o n th e gro u n ds o f fra u d mu st be fil ed ` wi th in o n e
yea r a fter en try o f th e d ecre e.” Ho w ev er, “ wh a t i t
mea n t wo u l d ha ve been be tter exp ress ed by s ta ti n g
th a t su ch peti ti on s mu st be presen te d befo r e th e
expi ra ti o n o f on e yea r fro m th e en try o f th e decr ee.
Sta tu tes mu st be gi ve n a rea so n a bl e co n stru cti o n
a n d th ere ca n be n o po ssi bl e rea so n fo r requ i ri n g
th e co mpl a i ni n g pa rty to wa i t u n ti l th e fi na l decree
i s en tered b efo re u rgi n g h i s cla i m o f fra u d.”
 In th e ca se o f Pl u ra d vs. Al cai de, G. R . No . 2 7 5 45 ,
th ere i s a n in di ca ti o n tha t th ere ca n be n o revi ew
u n til th e fin al decree h a s been i ssu ed. Th i s
i n di ca ti o n i s on l y o bi ter di ctu m an d wa s n o t vo ted
u po n by th e co u rt; th e determi n a ti o n o f th e ca se
reste d o n o th er gro u n ds a n d th e di ctu m wa s n o t
ta ken i n to con si dera ti o n by th e co u rt a s a wh ol e. A
di ctu m n o t n ecessa ri l y i n vo l ved i n th e ca se, l a cks
th e fo rce o f a n a dj u di ca ti o n a n d sho ul d n o t
o rdi n a ril y be rega rde d a s su ch .
Decision “Th e pl a i n ti ff's vi ew o f th e exten t o f a cti o n s u n der secti o n
5 1 3 o f th e C o de o f Ci vil P ro cedu re i s erro n eo u s. Th i s co u rt
h a s n o j u ri sdi cti o n to reo pen j u dgmen ts u n der th a t
secti o n i f o th er a dequ a te reme di es a re a va i l a bl e, an d su ch
reme di es a re n o t l a cki n g i n th e presen t ca se.

Th e ca se i s th erefo re di smi ssed wi th th e co sts a ga i n st th e


pl a in ti ff. So o rdered.”

You might also like