9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089

out the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud;

“Extrinsic or collateral fraud, as distinguished from intrinsic
fraud, connotes any fraudulent

________________

648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED * FIRST DIVISION.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals

649
*
No. L-39473. April 30, 1979.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON.

VOL. 89, APRIL 30, 1979 649
COURT OF APPEALS and ISABEL LASTIMADO,
respondents. Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals

Land Registration; Reopening of decree of registration; scheme executed by a prevailing litigant “outside the trial of a
Essential elements for reopening.—The essential elements for the case against the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys for
allowance of the reopening or review of a decree are: a) that the witnesses, whereby said defeated party is prevented from
petitioner has a real and dominical right; b) that he has been presenting fully and fairly his side of the case.” But intrinsic
deprived thereof; c) through fraud; d) that the petition is filed fraud takes the form of “acts of a party in a litigation during the
within one year from the issuance of the decree; and e) that the trial, such as the use of forged instruments or perjured testimony,
property has not as yet been transferred to an innocent which did not affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a
purchaser. fair and just determination of the case.” The fraud is one that
Same; Same; Same; Same; State should he afforded affects and goes into the jurisdiction of the Court.
opportunity to present evidence of fraud in grant of decree of Same; Same; Cadastral Proceedings; Republic Act 931; Land
registration.—We find reversible error. Although there was an inside military reservation cannot be the object of cadastral
agreement by the parties to submit for resolution the Opposition proceedings or reopening under Republic Act 931.—If the
to the Petition for Review, which was treated as a motion to allegation of petitioner that the land in question was inside the
dismiss, the trial Court, in the exercise of sound judicial military reserva tion at the time it was claimed is true, then, it
discretion, should not have dismissed the Petition outright but cannot be the object of any cadastral proceeding nor can it be the
should have afforded petitioner an opportunity to present object of reopening under Republic Act No. 931.
evidence in support of the facts alleged to constitute actual and Same; Same; No conversion of land into private property
extrinsic fraud committed by private respondent. Thus, in the despite longer possession of land; Reasons; Agency having
case of Republic vs. Sioson, et al., it was held that “the action of jurisdiction to register under the Torrens System land forming
the lower Court in denying the petition for review of a decree of part of public forest.—Similarly, if the land in question, indeed,
registration filed within one year from entry of the decree, forms part of the public forest, then, possession thereof, however
without hearing the evidence in support of the allegation and long, cannot convert it into private property as it is within the
claim that actual and extrinsic fraud upon which the petition is exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and beyond the
predicated, is held to be in error, because the lower Court should power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to register under the
have afforded the petitioner an opportunity to prove it.” Torrens Systems.
Same; Same; Fraud; Fraud required to justify review of Same; Same; Estoppel, not a case of; Inaction of Office of
registration decree; Extrinsic and collateral fraud distinguished.— Solicitor General to oppose cadastral proceedings not a bar to
However, for fraud to justify the review of a decree, it must be State’s recovery of public land; Reasons.—Even assuming that the
extrinsic or collateral and the facts upon which it is based have government agencies can be faulted for inaction and neglect
not been controverted or resolved in the case where the judgment (although the Solicitor General claims that it received no notice),
sought to be annulled was rendered. The following ruling spells yet, the same cannot operate to bar action by the State as it
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089

cannot be estopped by the mistake or error of its officials or On June 3, 1968, or within one year from the entry of
agents. Further, we cannot lose sight of the cardinal consideration the decree of registration, petitioner filed a Petition for
that “State as a persona in law is the juridical entity, which is the Review pursuant to Sec. 38, Act No. 496, on the ground of
source of any asserted right to ownership in land” under basic fraud alleging that during the period of alleged adverse
Constitutional precepts, and that it is moreover charged with the possession by private respondent, said parcel of land was
conservation of such patrimony. part of the U.S. Military Reservation in Bataan, which was
formally turned over to the Republic of the Philippines only
PETITION for review by certiorari of the decision of the on December 22, 1965, and that the same is inside the
Court of Appeals. public forest of Mariveles, Bataan and, therefore, not
subject to disposition or acquisition under the Public Land
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Law. Respondent field an Opposition
     Eduardo G. Makalintal for private respondent.
651
650

VOL. 89, APRIL 30, 1979 651

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals

thereto, which was considered by the trial Court, as a

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Motion to Dismiss, and on December 20, 1968, said Court
This is a Petition for Review (Appeal) by Certiorari filed by (Judge Tito V. Tizon, presiding) issued an Order dismissing
the Republic of the Philippines from the Decision of the the Petition for Review mainly on the ground that the
Court of Appeals promulgated on September 30, 1974 in Solicitor General had failed to file opposition to the original
CA-G.R. No. Sp-01504 denying the State’s Petition for Petition for reopening of the cadastral proceedings and
Certiorari and Mandamus. was, therefore, estopped from questioning the decree of
Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows: registration ordered issued therein. On January 28, 1969,
Private respondent, Isabel Lastimado, filed on petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied by
September 11, 1967, in the Court of First Instance of the trial Court in its Order dated May 20, 1969, for lack of
Bataan, Branch I, a Petition for the reopening of cadastral merit.
proceedings over a portion of Lot No. 626 of the Mariveles Petitioner seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal and a
Cadastre, consisting of 971,0569 hectares, pursuant to Record on Appeal, which was objected to by private *

Republic Act No. 931, as amended by Republic Act No. respondent. On July 15, 1972, or three years later, the
2061, docketed ad Cad. Case No. 19, LRC Cad. Rec. No. trial Court (Judge Abraham P. Vera, presiding) refused to
1097 In the absence of any opposition, whether from the give due course to the appeal. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Government or from private individuals, private Reconsideration but the trial Court denied it in its Order of
respondent was allowed to present her evidence ex-parte. October 14, 1972 on the ground that the proper remedy of
On October 14, 1967, the trial Court rendered a Decision petitioner was a Certiorari petition, not an ordinary appeal,
granting the Petition and adjudicating the land in favor of and that the Order sought to be appealed from had long
private respondent. The trial Court issued an order for the become final and executory as petitioner’s Motion for
issuance of a decree of registration on November 20, 1967, Reconsideration was pro-forma and did not suspend the
and on November 21, 1967, the Land Registration running of the reglementary period of appeal.
Commission issued Decree No. N-117573 in favor of private On November 9, 1972, petitioner filed a Petition for
respondent. Eventually, Original Certificate of Title No. N- Certiorari and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals
144 was also issued in her favor. Private respondent claiming that the trial Court gravely abused its discretion,
thereafter subdivided the land into ten lots, and the amounting to lack of jurisdiction when, without the benefit
corresponding titles. Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. of hearing, it summarily dismissed the Petition for Review;
18905 to 18914 inclusive, were issued by the Register of and since said Petition raised certain issues of fact which
Deeds. cannot be decided except in a trial on the merits, the
dismissal of the Petition on the basis of private
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089

respondent’s Opposition, considered as a Motion to The issuance of the writ of mandamus as prayed for in the
Dismiss, constituted a denial of due process of law. petition is no longer necessary as this Court, in the exercise of its
Petitioner then prayed that the Order of the trial Court, appellate jurisdiction and authority to supervise orderly
dated December 20, 1968 dismissing the Petition for administration of justice, has already resolved on the merits the
Review, be declared null and void, and that said trial Court question whether or not the dismissal of the petition for review
be directed to had been done 2
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.”
_________________
From this Decision, petitioner filed the present Petition for
* The delay was due to the fact that soon after the filing of the Record Review (Appeal) by Certiorari assigning the following
on Appeal, the entire records of the case were transmitted to the errors to the Court of Appeals and to the trial Court:
Department of Justice in connection with the administrative investigation
of Judge Tito V. Tizon. ________________

652 1 pp. 18-19 of CA Decision at pp, 54-55, Rollo.

2 p. 19 CA Decision at p. 55, Rollo.

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 653

Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
VOL. 89, APRIL 30, 1979 653
give due course to the Petition for Review; or, in the
Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
alternative, to give due course to petitioner’s appeal.
On September 30, 1974, the Court of Appeals upheld the
trial Court’s dismissal of the Petition for Review stating: 1. The Lower Court as well as the Court of Appeals erred in
finding that there can be possession, even for the purpose
“x x x We cannot find any allegation in the petition for review of claiming title, of land which at the time of possession is
which shows that private respondent had committed fraud subject to a military reservation.
against petitioner. Its representations and officials were duly 2. The Lower Court as well as the Court of Appeals erred in
notified of private respondent’s petition for reopening and finding that such land which is subject to a government
registration of title in her name. In said petition, the technical reservation, may appropriately be the subject of cadastral
descriptions of the portion of Lot No. 626 of the Mariveles proceedings, and hence, also of a petition to reopen
(Bataan) Cadastre, subject-matter of the petition were expressly cadastral proceedings.
stated, the boundaries, specifically delineated. The alleged ground
3. The Lower Court as well as the Court of Appeals erred in
that the land forms part of a forest land exists at the time
finding that a parcel of land which is part of the public
petitioner was duly notified of said petition. Failure to file
forest is susceptible of occupation and registration in favor
opposition is in effect, an admission that the petition is actually
of private individual.
not part of a forest land. Indubitably, therefore, no justifiable
4. The Lower Court as well as the Court of Appeals erred in
reason exists for the annulment of the Order, dated December 20,
not finding that the Republic of the Philippines is not
1968 (Annex D-Petition) of the lower court dismissing herein
estopped from questioning the decree of registration and
petitioner’s petition for review1 of the decree issued in favor of
the title issued pursuant thereto in favor of respondent
private respondent Lastimado.”
Lastimado over the parcel of land in question.
The Court of Appeals then disposed as follows: 5. The Lower Court erred in dismissing the petition for
review of the Republic of the Philippines.
“WHEREFORE, finding that the respondent Judge has not
6. The Court of Appeals erred in denying Petitioner’s petition
committed any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
for certiorari and mandamus.
jurisdiction in the issuance of an Order, dated December 20, 1968
(Annex D-Petition) dismissing herein petitioner’s petition for Section 38 of the Land Registration Act (Act 496) provides:
review, the present petition for review is hereby denied.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12

9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089

“Section 38. Decree of registration, and remedies after entry of testimony, which did not affect the present action of the
6
case, but
decree. did prevent a fair and just determination of the case.”
If the court after hearing finds that the applicant or adverse
claimant has title as stated in his application or adverse claim The fraud is 7 one that affects and goes into the jurisdiction
and proper for registration, a decree of confirmation and of the Court.
registration shall be entered. Every decree of registration shall In its Petition for Review filed before the trial Court,
bind the land, and quiet title thereto, subject only to the petitioner alleged that fraud was committed by private
exceptions stated in the following section. It shall be conclusive respondent when she misrepresented that she and her
upon and against all persons, including the Insular Government predecessors-ininterest had been in possession of the land
and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the publicly, peacefully,
application, notice of citation, or included in the general
description ‘To all whom it may concern’. Such decree shall not be ________________
opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any
3 As amended by Sec 3, Act No. 3621; and Sec. 1, Act No. 3630
person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for
4 Libudan vs. Gil, 45 SCRA 17 (1972)
reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of
5 Ibid.
any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by
6 ibid.
decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the competent
7 De Almeda vs. Cruz, 84 Phil. 636, 641, 643 (1949); Sterling
Court of First Instance a petition for review within
Investment Corporation vs. Ruiz, 30 SCRA 318 (1969)
654
655

654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 89, APRIL 30, 1979 655
Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
one year after entry of the decree provided3
no innocent purchaser
for value has acquired an interest. x x x.” exclusively and adversely against the whole world as owner
for more than forty years when, in fact, the subject land
The essential elements for the allowance of the reopening was inside the former U.S. Military Reservation, which was
or review of a decree are: a) that the petitioner has a real formally turned over to the Republic of the Philippines only
and dominical right; b) that he has been deprived thereof; on December 22, 1965, and that she likewise contended
c) through fraud; d) that the petition is filed within one that her rights, as derived from the original and primitive
year from the issuance of the decree; and e) that the occupants of the land in question, are capable of judicial
property has
4
not as yet been transferred to an innocent confirmation under existing laws, when the truth is, said
purchaser. parcel of land is within the public forest of Mariveles,
However, for fraud to justify the review of a decree, it Bataan, and is not subject to disposition or acquisition by
must be extrinsic or collateral and the facts upon which it private persons under the Public Land Law.
is based have not been controverted or resolved in the case5 The trial Court ruled, and was upheld by the Court of
where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. Appeals, that no fraud was committed by private
The following ruling spells out the difference between respondent, which deprived petitioner of its day in Court as
extrinsic and intrinsic fraud: there was no showing that she was aware of the facts
“Extrinsic or collateral fraud, as distinguished from intrinsic
alleged by the Government, so that she could not have
fraud, connotes any fraudulent scheme executed by a prevailing
suppressed them with intent to deceive. The trial Court
litigant “outside the trial of a case against the defeated party, or
also noted that petitioner had failed to file an opposition to
his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party is
the reopening of the cadastral proceedings despite notices
prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case.”
sent not only to the Solicitor General as required by
But intrinsic fraud takes the form of “acts of a party in a litigation
Republic Act No. 931, but to the Bureau of Lands and the
during the trial, such as the use of forged instruments or perjured
Bureau of Forestry as well. It then concluded that “the
remedy granted by section 38 of the Land Registration Act
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089
11
is designed to give relief to victims of fraud, not to those estopped by the mistake or error of its officials or agents.
who are victims of their own neglect, inaction or Further, we cannot lose sight of the cardinal consideration
carelessness, especially when no attempt is ever made to that “the State as persona in law is the juridical entity,
excuse or justify the neglect.” With the foregoing as the which is the source of any asserted right to ownership in
essential basis, the trial Court dismissed the Petition for land’ under basic Constitutional precepts, and that it is
Review. moreover 12charged with the conservation of such
We find reversible error. Although there was an patrimony.
agreement by the parties to submit for resolution the WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals
Opposition to the Petition for Review, which was treated as dated September 30, 1974, dismissing the Petition for
a motion to dismiss, the trial Court, in the exercise of Certiorari and Mandamus filed before it, as well as the
sound judicial discretion, should not have dismissed the Order of the Court of First Instance of Bataan (Branch I)
Petition outright but should have afforded petitioner an dated December 20, 1968, dismissing the Petition for
opportunity to present evidence in support of the facts Review, are hereby set aside and the records of this case
alleged to constitute actual and extrinsic fraud committed hereby remanded to the latter Court for
by private respondent.
8
Thus, in the case of Republic vs.
Sioson, et al., it was held that “the action of the _________________

9 Republic vs. Marcos, 52 SCRA 238 (1973)

_________________
10 Director of Lands vs, Abanzado, 65 SCRA 5 (1975)
8 9 SCRA 533 (1953) 11 Republic vs, Marcos, supra.
12 Ibid.
656
657

656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals VOL. 89, APRIL 30, 1979 657
Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
lower Court in denying the petition for review of a decree of
registration filed within one year from entry of the decree, further proceedings to enable petitioner to present evidence
without hearing the evidence in support of the allegation in support of its Petition for Review.
and claim that actual and extrinsic fraud upon which the No pronouncement as to costs.
petition is predicated, is held to be in error, because the SO ORDERED.
lower Court should have afforded the petitioner an
opportunity to prove it.”      Teehankee (Chairman) Fernandez, Guerrero and De
If the allegation of petitioner that the land in question Castro, JJ., concur.
was inside the military reservation at the time it was      Makasiar, J., no part.
claimed is true, then, it cannot be the object of any
cadastral proceeding nor can it9 be the object of reopening Notes.—Possession since time immemorial carries the
presumption that the land never had been part of the
under Republic Act No. 931. Similarly, if the land in
question, indeed, forms part of the public forest, then, public domain or that it had been private property even
possession thereof, however long, cannot convert it into before the Spanish Conquest. (Manarpaac vs. Cabanatan,
private property as it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of 21 SCRA 743).
the Bureau of Forestry and beyond the power and Though there is no formal deed of transfer over a piece
jurisdiction of the Cadastral Court to register under the of land, the fact that a deed of confirmation of applicant’s
Torrens System.
10
title was executed by the heirs of the former owner of the
Even assuming that the government agencies can be land without opposition whatsoever, is enough to prove the
faulted for inaction and neglect (although the Solicitor transfer of the land to the applicant. (Reyes-Talag vs.
Register of Deeds of Laguna, 22 SCRA 1388).
General claims that it received no notice), yet, the same
cannot operate to bar action by the State as it cannot be
11
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089 9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 089

Mere declaration by the court that “the registration of possession of the land covered by the decree was finally
the deed of absolute sale is null and void” is one thing, and decided. (Collado vs. Court of Appeals, 8 SCRA 500.)
a declaration of the nullity of the sale itself is another. Any person claiming title to a parcel of land that has
(Ignacio, Sr. vs. Manalo, 33 SCRA 137). been the object of a cadastral proceeding but for some
A homestead cannot be taken for the satisfaction of justifiable reason has been unable to file his claim in the
debts contracted prior to the expiration of five years from proper court during the time limit established by law is
the issuance of the patent. (Vda. de Bautista vs. Marcos, 3 given the right to file a petition to have the proceeding
SCRA 434). reopened so that if, after hearing, he proves that he has
In the absence of fraud, title to land in a cadastral complied with all the conditions established therein he may
proceeding is vested on the owner, upon the expiration of proceed to establish his title over the land as if the same
the period to appeal from the decision or adjudication by has not been declared part of the public domain. (Calse vs.
the cadastral court, without such appeal being perfected, Pinkisan Yadno, 12 SCRA 745.)
and from that time the land becomes registered property Under Republic Act 931, only persons “claiming title to
which cannot be lost by adverse claim. (De la Merced vs. parcels of land that have been the object of cadastral pro-
Court of Appeals, 5 SCRA 145.)
659
The proceedings under the Cadastral Act are judicial;
the action is one in rem and any decision rendered therein
by the VOL. 89, APRIL 30, 1979 659
658 Dulay vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission

ceedings” are granted the right to petition for a reopening

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
thereof if the other conditions named therein are
Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals successfully met. (Republic vs. Marcos, 29 SCRA 517.)

cadastral court is binding against the whole world, ——o0o——

including the Government. (Neito vs. Quines, 6 SCRA 74.)
The adjudication of land in a registration or cadastral
case does not become final and incontrovertible until the
expiration of one year from entry of the final decree; that as
long as the final decree is not issued and the period of one
year within which it may be reviewed has not elapsed, the
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
decision remains under the control and sound discretion of
the court rendering it, which court, after hearing, may set
aside the decision or decree and adjudicate the land to
another party. (Cayanan vs. De los Santos, 21 SCRA 1348.)
The power of the court to order the reopening of
proceedings under Republic Act 931 is limited “to such of
said parcel of land as have not been alienated, reserved,
leased, granted, or otherwise provisionally or permanently
disposed of by the Government. (Republic vs. Marcos, 29
SCRA 517.)
A decree of registration issued in a cadastral case cannot
be said to have been collaterally attacked if petitions for
the reopening or review of the said decree were presented
in the cadastral case itself within the period provided for in
Section 38 of Act 496, as amended, although the
proceedings therein were suspended until the civil action
which was commenced for the purpose of recovering the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746b86d8514de2029a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12