[ G. R. No. 42111. July 06, 1937 ] 64 Phil. 428
[ G. R. No. 42111. July 06, 1937 ]
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, APPLICANT, VS. EUSTAQUIO ABEJAS ET AL., CLAIMANTS. ARSENIO VALINO ET AL., CLAIMANTS AND APPELLEES. TIBURCIO BALAGTAS AND PBOCESO FRANCISCO, CLAIMANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
LAUREL, J.:
In the cadastral proceedings for the compulsory registration of land in the municipality of Talavera, Province of Nueva Ecija, conflicting decisions were rendered adjudicating one and the same lot No. 855 (now subdivided lots 1889-A and 1889-B) included in the cadastre to two opposing groups of claimants.
In the year 1915, Pedro Valino filed an application under the provisions of the Land Registration Law, Act No. 496, for the confirmation and registration of his title to parcels of land among which was a parcel later known as lot No. 855 of the cadastre of the municipality of Talavera, Nueva Ecija. An order of general default was entered in said case. This was in 1917. But as in that year cadastral proceedings were impending or in progress in Talavera, the court suspended the hearing of the application of Pedro Valino in order that hisi claim might be taken up in the cadastral hearing together with the other lots involved. In these cadastral proceedings, Tiburcio Balagtas filed an answer with respect to lot No. 855 on November 7,1921. This lot was adjudicated to him by decision of the Court of First instance of Nueva Ecija promulgated on November 29, 1921. On January 17, 1922, Arsenio Valino and his coclaimants filed an answer with respect to lots Nos. 495 and 855. At the trial, the Valinos agreed to the adjudication of the southern portion of lot No. 495 with an area of two hectares in favor of the spouses Saturnino Arenas and Marcosa San Pedro, and on February 18, 1922, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija rendered a decision adjudicating lot No. 855 and the remaining portion of lot No. 495 in favor of Arsenio Valino and his co-claimants and ordering the subdivision of the two lots in question, the two hectares awarded to the spouses Saturnino Arenas and Marcosa San Pedro to be known as lot No. 495, and the remainder of lot No. 495 together with lot No. 855 to be designated as lot No. 855 proper.
Upon an ex parte petition filed by counsel for Tiburcio Balagtas and Proceso Francisco on December 15, 1930, alleging that Tiburcio Balagtas had sold the northern portion of lot No. 855, now lot No. 1889, to Proceso Francisco and that the subdivision of lot No. 1889 into lots Nos. 1889-A and 1889-B had already been approved by the Director of Lands, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, on December 23, 1930, ordered the issuance of the corresponding decree of registration in favor of Proceso Francisco with respect to lot No. 1889-A and in favor of Tiburcio Balagtas with respect to lot No. 1889-B.
On February 6, 1931, the chief surveyor of the General Land Registration Office called the attention of the court to the two conflicting decisions with respect to lot No. 1889 which is the new designation of lot No. 855 combined with the remaining portion of lot No. 495 as ordered in the decision of February 18, 1922. In view thereof, the court on February 26, 1931 ordered that the case be set for further proceedings for the proper determination of the ownership of lot No. 855, now lot No. 1889. The order of December 23, 1930 referred to in the next preceding paragraph hereof appears to have been set aside by the court on March 30, 1932.
Upon agreement of the parties, the trial court on November 17, 1931, appointed deputy clerk of court Honorio U. Cruz as referee to receive evidence as to the ownership of the lot in question and to report his findings to the court. On March 12, 1932, counsel for Tiburcio Balagtas and Proceso Francisco filed a motion with the court alleging that the decision of November 29, 1921 had already become final and executory, and praying for the issuance of the corresponding titles in their favor and the dismissal of the proceedings on the ground that the court had already lost jurisdiction over the same. This motion was denied by the court on March 30, 1932. Evidence as to the ownership of the lot in controversy was presented before the referee who submitted a report on June 22, 1933, recommending as follows:
“In view of the foregoing facts, it is respectfully recommended to the Honorable Court: (1) That the decision dated November 29, 1921, adjudicating lot No. 855 to Tiburcio Balagtas, as well as the order of this court dated December 23, 1930, approving the subdivision plan Bsd887 of lots 1889-A and 1889-B (formerly lot No. 855) and ordering the issuance of the decrees corresponding to said lots, be declared null and without effect (ab initio); and (2,) that the other decision of said lot No. 855, dated February 18,1922, adjudicating the same to Arsenio Valino and others (heirs of the late Pedro Valino) be considered valid, binding and in full force and effect.”
On January 31, 1934, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija rendered judgment the dispositive part of which is as follows:
“Por tanto, se desestima la reclamacion de Tiburcio Balagtas, y ordena la subdivision de este lote como sigue: Una porcion de dos hectareas, al lado Sur del lote 495, se adjudica a los esposos Saturnino Arenas y Marcosa San Pedro, cuya porcion se conocera como lote No. 495, y el resto de este lote, juntamente con el lote 855, formando con este un solo lote que se conocera definitivamente como lote No. 855, se adjudica en partes iguales y pro indiviso UNA mitad a los hermanos Arsenio Valino de 34 afios de edad, casado con Ricarda de los Santos, Fidel Valino de 28 afios de edad, soltero, Gumersindo Valino de 25 afios de edad, casado con Maria Socorro Payumo, Victorino Valino de 20 afios de edad, soltero, Adriano Valino de 21 afios de edad, casado con Lucia Alejandro, Natividad Valino, de 18 afios de edad, soltera, y Luisa Valino de 17 afios de edad, tambien soltera, hijos del flnado Pedro Valino en primeras nupcias, y la OTRA mitad en partes iguales y tambiSn pro indiviso a los mismos herederos de Pedro Valino arriba nombrados y sus dos hermanos en segundas nupcias, Pilar Valino de 16 afios de edad, soltera, y Sergio Valino de 15 afios de edad,’ soltero, todos residentes en Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija.
“Una vez firme esta decision, expidase el decreto correspondiente.
“Se ordena la subdivision de dicho lote en la forma arriba indkada. Asi se ordena.”
Tiburcio Balagtas and Proceso Francisco now appeal from said decision of the lower court, assigning the following errors:
“I. The court a quo erred in denying appellants’ motion of March 12, 1934 (should be March 12, 1932; B. of E., pp. 11, 12), and in reopening the whole case and receiving evidence as to the ownership of the land object of these proceedings.
“II. The court a quo erred in declaring the appellees the owners of the land in question. (B. of E., pp. 14-18.)
“III. The court a quo erred in not granting appellants’ motion for new trial.”
This case does not involve double registration as no final decree of registration and confirmation of title has yet been issued or entered in favor qi any claimant. Rather, it involves a conflict of decisions. The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, has rendered three decisions respecting lot No. 855 of the Talavera cadastre, the first on November 29, 1921 adjudicating the lot to Tiburcio C. Balagtas; the second, on February 18, 1922, adjudicating the same lot to the Valino brothers; and the third, on January 31, 1932, virtually confirming the adjudication made in favor of the Valino brothers, after consideration of the evidence presented before a referee appointed by the court. The issues presented in this case may be reduced to one single proposition, namely, which decision should be upheld? As stated, the first decision was rendered on November 29, 1921. This decision became final thirty days thereafter (sec. 11, Cadastral Law, Act No. 2259; Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abural, 39 Phil., 996, 1003). When the answer filed on November 7, 1931 by Tiburcio C. Balagtas was heard no other claimant appeared. Even considering the lot claimed by Balagtas as contested in view of the application previously filed by Pedro Valino, predecessor in interest of the appellees herein, and the action of the court in postponing the adjudication of the said lot, it does not appear that when that lot was adjudicated to Balagtas on February 18, 1922 Pedro Valino had not been notified and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary we must presume that official duty has been regularly performed (sec. 334, par. 14, Code of Civil Procedure). The first decision complies with the requirement of section 11 of the Cadastral Law. It is plain that the Court of First Instance rendered its second decision when its first decision had already become final. No appeal appears to have been taken from the first decision; nor have the aggrieved parties availed themselves of the remedy afforded by section 113 or 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The third decision was rendered more than twelve years after the first.
The law affords various remedies to persons who have been deprived of their lands or interest therein by virtue of the operation of the land registration system. Upon proper and timely application, relief may be obtained under section 113 or 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, both sections having been held applicable in registration proceedings (Elvifia vs. Filamor and Domingo, 56 Phil., 305, 309; Caballes vs. Director of Lands and Court of First Instance of Laguna, 41 Phil., 357, 362). Relief may also be obtained on the ground of fraud under section 38 of the Land Registration Act provided one year has not yet elapsed from the entry of a final decree of registration. In appropriate cases, an action for reconveyance may be maintained (Clemente and Pichay vs. Lukban and Domingo, 53 Phil., 931), and recourse may be had to the assurance fund (sec. 103, Act No. 496; Estrellado and Alcantara vs. Martinez, 48 Phil., 256, 260). In the present case, altho it appears that the Valinos have lost the right to appeal or to secure relief under section 113 or 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the remedy provided in section 38 of Act No. 496 is still open to them. As a matter of fact, we have held that a petition for review under section 38 aforementioned may be filed at any time after the rendition of the court’s decision and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the final decree of registration (Rivera vs. Moran, 48 Phil., 836, 840; Villados vs. San Pedro, 49 Phil., 596, 600).
We are much impressed with the evidence tending to show ownership of the Valinos of the lot in question and that the appellant, Tiburcio Balagtas, was well aware of this fact, and while the provisions of laws affecting procedure should be liberally construed in order to promote justice and assist the parties in speedily obtaining it (sec. 2, Code of Civil Procedure), the law is clear and we cannot overemphasize the fact that adherence thereto and to well-settled rules is necessary in the interest of well-ordered administration of justice. The judgment in favor of the appellants having been validly rendered and the same having become final and it appearing that the law affords ample remedy, the judgment of the lower court is hereby reversed with the reservation in favor of the claimants-appellees to file the corresponding petition for review under section 38 of the Land Registration Law. Without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Avancena, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Diaz, JJ. concur.