G.R. No. 47900 - MARCH 1941 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 47900March 15, 1941 Antonio Salomon, et al. vs. Severa Bocauto, et al. G.R. No. 47401March 15, 1941 Central Republic Bank & Trust Co. vs. P.L. Bustamante G.R. No. 47963March 14, 1941 Hijos de F. Escaño, Inc. vs. Joasquin Lao Goo G.R. No. 47832March 14, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Jesus G. de la Cruz G.R. No. 47815March 14, 1941 Florentino Cruz vs. El Pueblo de Filipinas G.R. No. 47774March 14, 1941 Magdalena Estate, Inc. vs. Louis J. Myrick G.R. No. 47714March 14, 1941 Lourdes Rivero de Ortega vs. Felipe Natividad, etc., et al. G.R. No. 47582March 14, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Concepcion Pagayon G.R. No. 47467March 14, 1941 Osaka Boeki Kaisha, Inc. vs. Leonardo Guison, et al. G.R. No. 47337March 14, 1941 Andres Soler vs. Jose Fuentebella, et al. G.R. No. 47870March 13, 1941 Government of the Philippines vs. Enrique Echaus, et al. G.R. No. 47822March 13, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Francisco Bihag G.R. No. 47772March 13, 1941 In re: Monico A. Dia vs. Finance & Mining Investments Corporation G.R. No. 47477March 13, 1941 Timotea Sambaan vs. Gregoria Villanueva G.R. No. 47430March 13, 1941 Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. Isabel Ablaza, et al. G.R. No. 47661March 12, 1941 Bohol Land Transportation Co. vs. BLT Employees Labor Union G.R. No. 48054March 11, 1941 Benedicto Austria, et al. vs. Solicitor General, et al. G.R. No. 47776March 11, 1941 Dy Pac and Company vs. Katipunan mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy sa Filipinas, et al. G.R. No. 47054March 10, 1941 People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Hernandez, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Antonio Salomon, et al. vs. Severa Bocauto, et al. Central Republic Bank & Trust Co. vs. P.L. Bustamante Hijos de F. Escaño, Inc. vs. Joasquin Lao Goo El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Jesus G. de la Cruz Florentino Cruz vs. El Pueblo de Filipinas Magdalena Estate, Inc. vs. Louis J. Myrick Lourdes Rivero de Ortega vs. Felipe Natividad, etc., et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Concepcion Pagayon Osaka Boeki Kaisha, Inc. vs. Leonardo Guison, et al. Andres Soler vs. Jose Fuentebella, et al. Government of the Philippines vs. Enrique Echaus, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Francisco Bihag In re: Monico A. Dia vs. Finance & Mining Investments Corporation Timotea Sambaan vs. Gregoria Villanueva Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. Isabel Ablaza, et al. Bohol Land Transportation Co. vs. BLT Employees Labor Union Benedicto Austria, et al. vs. Solicitor General, et al. Dy Pac and Company vs. Katipunan mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy sa Filipinas, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Hernandez, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 47900             March 15, 1941

ANTONINO SALOMON, ET AL., applicants-appellees,
vs.
SEVERA BOCAUTO, ET AL., movants-appellants.

Rupisan and Ramirez and Primo T. Ocampo for appellants.
Vicente Bengzon for appellees.

LAUREL,J.:

On March 23, 1937, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Antonino Salomon, Monica Reyes, Teodora Casiquen and the latter's children, Generosa, Dionaldon, Federico, Jose, Matusalina, Emilio, Quiterio, Josefina, Consolacion and Virginia, all surnamed Conde, applied for the registration in their names of the land described in plan Psu-100925, then in the actual possession of Bonifacio Redon and Florencia Redon. The cause was forthwith docketed as case No. 16256. Bonifacio Redon and Florencia Redon did not appear to contest the application notwithstanding the notices sent them; instead, Policarpio Tamoro, in whose favor Bonifacio Redon testified as a witness, entered an opposition and presented his claim in due form. On January 26, 1939, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan rendered its decision overruling the opposition and adjudicating the land in favor of the applicants. Shortly thereafter, Leoncio (Florencia) Redon filed a petition for review under section 38 of Act No. 469 which was later amended to include Severa Bocauto as one of the petitioners. On July 17, 1939, upon the written objection of the herein applicants-appellees, the lower court denied the petition for review. Holding this procedure highly irregular, the petitioners have interposed this appeal.

Under section 38 of Act No. 496, the petitioner must show affirmatively that (1) he has an interest or estate in the land, and (2) he has been deprived of that interest through fraud in the procurement of the decree of registration. These essential facts are to be clearly alleged in the petition; otherwise, the registration court is justified in dismissing the same. (Guzmanvs. Ortiz, 12 Phil., 701; Cusarvs. Insular Government, 13 Phil., 319; Apuradovs. Apurado, 26 Phil., 586; and Escudero & Marasiganvs. Esguerra, 48 Phil., 511.) In the present case, the appellants Bocauto and Redon pretend to derive their claim from Mariano Redon, the original owner, The lower court, however, in its decision dated January 26, 1939, appears to have rejected this claim and found that Mariano Redon had sold the said land to Bonifacio Redon, who, in turn, conveyed it to Policarpio Tamoro. Moreover, both petitioners had notice of the original registration proceedings, but failed to put up any claim and to show title in themselves.

The judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Imperial, Diaz, Moran, and Horrilleno, JJ.,concur.