FACTS:
LAHORA v. DAYANGHIRANG 1. Spouses Lahora petitioned to CFI Davao for the registrat
30 Jan 1971| Reyes, JBL,J. | Patent | Angel
r: Spouses Francisco Lahora and Toribia Moralizon
ent: Emilio Dayanghirang, Jr. and Director of Lands
ady:
ses Lahora and Moralizon applied for the registration of 9 parcels
ne of which was Lot 2228. This was opposed by Dayanghirang,
ed that lands belonging to him and his wife were included in the
on for registration, specifically Lot No. 2228 which was already
d and has an OCT int he name of his wife. The Spouses
ently appealed the decision of CFI Davao dismissing their petition
ect to Lot No. 2228 on the ground of previous registration. They
hat that the question of the validity of a certi ficate of title based
nt allegedly obtained by fraud can be raised by them in a land
on proceeding, contrary to the ruling of CFI Davao. The Court ruled
Spouses’ petition for registration of the same parcel of land on the
hat the first certificate of title covering the said property is a
n no longer prosper. Assuming arguendo, that there indeed exists
case for cancellation of the patent for intrinsic fraud the action for
the decree should have been led before the one year period had
Thereafter, the proper party to bring the action would only be the
ejudiced by the alleged fraudulent act — the owner and grantor,
nother applicant or claimant. Further, upon expiration of one year
ssuance, the certificate of titlebased on a patent shall become
le and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration
ng.
g public land patents and the character of the certificate of title
be issued by virtue thereof, is that where land is granted by the
ent to a private individual, the corresponding patent therefor is
and the certificate of title is issued to the grantee; thereafter, the
utomatically brought within the operation of the Land Registration
ning, upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate
all become irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in
tion proceeding.
parcels of land located in Manay, Davao, half of which ha
acquired by Moralizon allegedly by inheritance, and the o
purchase and by continuous, open, public and adverse po
in the concept of owner. One of the said parcels of land i
as lot No. 2228.
2. The petition was opposed by Dayanghirang, who alleged
belonging to him and his wife were included in the applic
registration, mentioning specifically Lot No. 2228 which
be already covered by an Original Certificate Title in the n
Dayanghirang’s wife. The Director of Lands also led an o
to the petition, contending that the applicants or their pre
in-interest never had sufficient title over the parcels of la
to be registered, nor have they been in open, continuous,
notorious possession thereof for at least 30 years.
3. CFI Davao: Lot No. 2228 was the subject of a public land
favor of the Dayanghirang’s wife, and by virtue of which g
patent Original Certificate of Title No. P-6053 was issued
name.
4. Spouses Lahora: patent issued to Dayanghirang’s wife w
procured by fraud, because appellants, the alleged actua
of the land, were not notified of the application for paten
and of its adjudication. Thus, according to appellants, sin
were the actual occupants of the property, the governme
not have awarded it to Dayanghirang’s wife, and the pate
to the latter, as well as the original certificate of title sub
obtained by her, were null and void.
ISSUES:
WON a certificate of title based on a patent allegedly obtained by
be raised by them in a land registration proceeding – NO.
RATIO:
1. Regarding public land patents and the character of the c
title that may be issued by virtue thereof, is that where la
granted by the government to a private individual, the
corresponding patent therefor is recorded, and the certifi
is issued to the grantee; thereafter, the land is automatic
brought within the operation of the Land Registration Ac
 n expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title
ll become irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in
gistration proceeding.
he present case, Lot No. 2228 was registered and titled in the
me of Dayanghirang’s wife 9 years earlier. Clearly, Spouses’
tion for registration of the same parcel of land on the ground
t the first certificate of title covering the said property is a nullity,
no longer prosper.
cadastral case the court has no jurisdiction to decree again the
stration of land already decreed in an earlier case; and that a
ond decree for the same land would be null and void.
uming arguendo, that there indeed exists a proper case for
cellation of the patent for intrinsic fraud the action for review of
decree should have been led before the one year period had
psed. Thereafter, the proper party to bring the action would only
he person prejudiced by the alleged fraudulent act — the owner
grantor, and not another applicant or claimant.