Alba vs.

Dela Cruz G.R. No. 5246 Sept. 16, 1910

FACTS: 

The petitioners herein are the he only heirs of Doña Segunda Alba Clemente and
Honorato Grey. The four petitioners, as co-owners, on Dec. 18, 1906 sought to have
registered a parcel of agricultural land in Bulacan. The petition was accompanied by a
plan and technical description of the said lot. After hearing the court, on Feb. 12, 1908,
entered a decree directing that described in the petition be registered in the names of
the 4 petitioners.

On Jun, 1908, Anacleto Ratilla de la Cruz filed a motion in the Court of Land
Registration (CLR) asking for a revision of the case, including the decision, upon the
ground that he is the absolute owner of the 2 parcels of land described in said motion
and which he alleges to be included in the lands decreed to the petitioners. He alleges
that the decree of Feb. 12, 1908 was obtained maliciously and fraudulently by the
petitioners, thereby depriving him of said lands. 

For him, The petitioners deliberately omitted to include in their registration his

name as one of the occupants of the land so as to be given notice of registration. He
further alleged having inherited the 2 lots from his father, Baldomero R. de la Cruz, who
had a state grant for the same (was duly inscribed in the old register of property in
Bulacan on April 6, 1895.)

He therefore asked a revision of the case, and that the said decree be modified
so as to exclude the two parcels of land described in said motion. The Land Court upon
this motion reopened the case, and after hearing the additional evidence presented by
both parties, rendered, on the Nov. 23, 1908, its decision modifying the former decree
by excluding from the same the two parcels of land claimed by Anacleto Ratilla de la
Cruz.

From this decision and judgment the petitioners appealed.

The court below held that the failure on the part of the petitioners to include the
name of the appellee in their petition, as an occupant of these two parcels of land, was
a violation of section 21 of Act No. 496, and that this constituted fraud within the
meaning of section 38 of said Land Registration Act. The trial court further held that the
grant from the estate should prevail over the public document of purchase of 1864.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the court below commit an error in reopening this case in
June, 1908, after its decree had been entered in February of the same year.

2. Whether or not,the petitioners did obtain the decree of Feb 12, 1908, by
means of fraud.
RULING: 

The  judgment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby reversed and
judgment entered in favor of the petitioners in conformity with the decree of the lower
court of February 12, 1908.

1. The said decree of February 12, 1908, should not have been opened on account
of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, and
could have been opened only on the ground that the said decree had been
obtained by fraud.

2. The application for the registration is to be in writing, signed and sworn to by the
applicant, or by some person duly authorized in his behalf. It is to contain, among
other things, the names and addresses of all occupants of land and of all
adjoining owners, if known.

The subject land was first rented to Baldomero de la Cruz by petitioners’ uncle
Jose Grey and this contract was duly executed in writing. (While the appellee admits
that his father and brother entered into these rental contracts and did, in fact, cultivate
the petitioners’ land, nevertheless he insists that the two small parcels in question were
not included in these contracts).

The subsequent State grant was obtained by Baldomero after the death of the
petitioners’ parents and while he petitioners were minors. So it is clear that the
petitioners honestly believed that the appellee was occupying the said parcels as their
lessee at the time they presented their application for registration. They did not act in
bad faith, nor with any fraudulent intent, when they omitted to include in their application
the name of the appellee as one of the occupants of the land. They believed that it was
not necessary nor required that they include in their application the names of their
tenants.

Indeed, the Land Registration Act requires that all occupants be named in the
petition and given notice by registered mail. However, this did not do the appellee any
good, as he was not notified; but he was made a party defendant, as we have said, by
means of the publication “to all whom it may concern.” Every decree of registration shall
bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to the [given] exceptions. It shall
be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular Government, and all
the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application, notice, or citation,
or included in the general description “to all whom it may concern.”

As to whether or not the appellee can succesfully maintain an action under the
provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Land Registration Act (secs. 2365, 2366,
Compilation) we do not decide.