G.R. No. 34428 - DECEMBER 1930 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 34428December 29, 1930 Batazar Morales vs. Isidro Paredes, et al. G.R. No. 33654December 29, 1930 Kabankalan Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Josefa Pacheco G.R. No. 33646December 29, 1930 Philippine Land Improvement Co. vs. Simeon Blas G.R. No. 33176December 29, 1930 People of the Philippines vs. Benigno Marino G.R. No. 32945December 29, 1930 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Walter A. Smith and Co. Inc. G.R. No. 32906December 29, 1930 Adoracion Rosales de Echaus, et al. vs. Maria Gan, etc., et al. G.R. No. 32640December 29, 1930 Walter A. Smith & Co., Inc. vs. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber Company G.R. No. 32598December 29, 1930 Martin Gonzales vs. Sisenando Turla, et al. G.R. No. 32471December 29, 1930 Severino Jayme, et al. vs. Juan D. Salvador, et al. G.R. No. 32433December 29, 1930 Francisco de Guzman, et al. vs. Crisanto de la Fuente, et al. G.R. No. 32260December 29, 1930 Philippine National Bank vs. Pablo Rocha, et al. G.R. No. 32226December 29, 1930 Estanislao Reyes vs. Sebastiana Martinez, et al. G.R. No. 34539December 20, 1930 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Concepcion, et al. G.R. No. 33393-33398December 20, 1930 Li Teck San vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 33365December 20, 1930 Testate Estate: Paulino Diancin Teofista Dolarvs. Fidel Diancin, et al. G.R. No. 33318December 20, 1930 Smith, Bell & Company, Ltd. vs. Municipality of Zamboanga, et al. G.R. No. 32629December 20, 1930 Luis Toribio vs. Julian Decasa, et al. G.R. No. 32466December 20, 1930 Ramon Bartolazo vs. La Sociedad Dalisay G.R. No. 32465December 20, 1930 La Sociedad Dalisay vs. Januario de los Reyes G.R. No. 32443December 20, 1930 Inocenta Ramas vda. de Penales vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. 32336December 20, 1930 Julio C. Abella vs. Guillermo B. Francisco G.R. No. 33196December 19, 1930 Tan Senguan and Company vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. 33463December 18, 1930 People of the Philippines vs. Basilio Borinaga G.R. No. 33380December 17, 1930 Teodora Astudillo vs. Manila Electric Company G.R. No. 33434December 16, 1930 Municipality of Tarlac, et al. vs. Tomas Besa G.R. No. 34616December 15, 1930 Hermenegildo Makapagal, et al. vs. Francisco Santamaria, et al. G.R. No. 33584December 15, 1930 Marcelo Enriquez vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. G.R. No. 32663December 15, 1930 People of the Philippines vs. Agapito Francisco, et al. G.R. No. 34484December 13, 1930 Fernando Maulit vs. Domingo Samonte G.R. No. 34450December 13, 1930 Benito De Los Reyes, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Batangas, et al. G.R. No. 33399December 13, 1930 Raymundo Transportation Co., Ltd. vs. Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company, et al. G.R. No. 33304December 13, 1930 People of the Philippines vs. Constatnte Sotelo, et al. G.R. No. 33131December 13, 1930 Emilio Gonzales La O vs. Yek Tong Lin Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. G.R. No. 33113December 13, 1930 Philippine Trust Company vs. Lucio Echaus G.R. No. 33537December 5, 1930 Escudero Electric Service Company vs. Margarita Roxas y Ayala vda. de Soriano G.R. No. 32776December 4, 1930 Sovero Domingo, et al. vs. Santos, Ongsiako, Lim y Cia, et al. G.R. No. 33494December 2, 1930 Serafia Ochoa vs. Serafin de Leon The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Batazar Morales vs. Isidro Paredes, et al. Kabankalan Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Josefa Pacheco Philippine Land Improvement Co. vs. Simeon Blas People of the Philippines vs. Benigno Marino Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Walter A. Smith and Co. Inc. Adoracion Rosales de Echaus, et al. vs. Maria Gan, etc., et al. Walter A. Smith & Co., Inc. vs. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber Company Martin Gonzales vs. Sisenando Turla, et al. Severino Jayme, et al. vs. Juan D. Salvador, et al. Francisco de Guzman, et al. vs. Crisanto de la Fuente, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Pablo Rocha, et al. Estanislao Reyes vs. Sebastiana Martinez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Concepcion, et al. Li Teck San vs. Insular Collector of Customs Testate Estate: Paulino Diancin Teofista Dolarvs. Fidel Diancin, et al. Smith, Bell & Company, Ltd. vs. Municipality of Zamboanga, et al. Luis Toribio vs. Julian Decasa, et al. Ramon Bartolazo vs. La Sociedad Dalisay La Sociedad Dalisay vs. Januario de los Reyes Inocenta Ramas vda. de Penales vs. Director of Lands, et al. Julio C. Abella vs. Guillermo B. Francisco Tan Senguan and Company vs. Collector of Internal Revenue People of the Philippines vs. Basilio Borinaga Teodora Astudillo vs. Manila Electric Company Municipality of Tarlac, et al. vs. Tomas Besa Hermenegildo Makapagal, et al. vs. Francisco Santamaria, et al. Marcelo Enriquez vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Agapito Francisco, et al. Fernando Maulit vs. Domingo Samonte Benito De Los Reyes, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Batangas, et al. Raymundo Transportation Co., Ltd. vs. Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Constatnte Sotelo, et al. Emilio Gonzales La O vs. Yek Tong Lin Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. Philippine Trust Company vs. Lucio Echaus Escudero Electric Service Company vs. Margarita Roxas y Ayala vda. de Soriano Sovero Domingo, et al. vs. Santos, Ongsiako, Lim y Cia, et al. Serafia Ochoa vs. Serafin de Leon The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 34428 December 29, 1930
BALTAZAR MORALES,petitioner,
vs.
ISIDRO PAREDES, Judge of First Instance of Pangasinan, ET AL.,respondents.
Nicolas Belmonte for petitioner.
The respondent Judge in his own behalf.
Turner, Rheberg & Sanchez for respondents P. Gavino, R. Gavino and Prudencio Gavino.
OSTRAND,J.
Pedro, Rosendo, and Prudencio Gavino applied for the registration of a parcel of land situated in the poblacion of the municipality of San Quintin, Pangasinan, and on June 23, 1930, the application was granted and a decision to that effect rendered. Baltazar Morales now claims to be the owner of the land, but he was not advised to the registration proceedings and was not informed thereof until the early part of the month of September, 1930. He thereupon filed a motion on September 18 in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for the reconsideration of the decision of June 23 and as far as the record shows the motion may still be pending. Without dismissal of the motion mentioned, the movant brought the present action praying that the aforesaid decision be set aside and that a new trial be granted in accordance with section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff has unfortunately mistaken his remedy. Assuming without deciding that he allegations of fraud in his complaint are true, the proper remedy is to petition for a review under section 38 of the Land Registration Act. The plaintiff's contention that such review cannot be had until the final decree has been issued is not in accordance with the view adopted by this court. In the case ofRivera vs. Moran(48 Phil., 836), the court said:
It is conceded that no decree of registration has been entered and section 38 of the Land Registration Act provides that a petition for review of such a decree on the grounds of fraud must be filed "withinone year after entry of the decree." Giving this provision a literal interpretation, it may at first blush seem that the petition for review cannot be presented until the final decree has been entered. But on further reflection, it is obvious that such could not have been the intention of the Legislature and that what it meant would have been better expressed by stating that such petitions must be presented before the expiration of one year from the entry of the decree. Statutes must be given a reasonable construction and there can be no possible reason for requiring the complaining party to wait until the final decree is entered before urging his claim of fraud. We therefore hold that a petition for review under section 38,supra, 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.lawphi1>net
In the case ofPlurad vs. Alcaide, G. R. No. 27545,1their is an indication that there can no be no review until the final decree has been issued. This indication is onlyobiter dictumand was not voted upon by the court; the determination of the case rested on other grounds and thedictumwas not taken into consideration by the court as a whole. Adictumnot necessarily involved in the case, lacks the force of an adjudication and should not ordinarily be regarded as such.
The plaintiff's view of the extent of actions under section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure is erroneous. This court had no jurisdiction to reopen judgments under that section if other adequate remedies are available, and such remedies are not lacking in the present case.
The case is therefore dismissed with the costs against the plaintiff. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Promulgated December 24, 1927, not reported