1.

The following are the remedies under PD 1529 available to the aggrieved
party in case of fraudulent registration:
a. Appeal (Sections 30 and 33 PD 1529)
-Must be filed within 15 days from receipt of the judgment or final
order appealed from
b. Petition for Review/ petition for Reopening of the Decree of Registration
(Section 32 PD 1529)
-Must be filed not later than one year from and after the date of the
entry of such decree of registration
c. Action for Reconveyance ( Sections 53 and 96 PD 1529)
Grounds for Reconveyance and corresponding prescriptive period of
prescription:
i. Fraud 4 years from discovery of alleged fraud
ii. Implied trust or constructive trust 10 years from the
issuance of the original certificate of title
iii. Express trust- not barred by prescription
iv. Void contract imprescriptible
d. Action for Damages (Section 32 PD 1529)
-An ordinary action for damages prescribes in 10 years after the
issuance of te Torrens title over the property.
e. Action for Compensation from the Assurance Fund (Section 95 PD 1529)
General rule: Must be instituted within 6 years from the time the right
to bring such action first occurred which is the date of issue of the
certificate of title.
Exception: The action may be instituted at any time within 2 years
after such disability has been removed notwithstanding the expiration
of the original 6 years if the person entitled to bring such right of
action was a minor or insane or imprisoned or otherwise under legal
disability. (Section 102 PD 1529)
The aggrieved party may also avail himself of the following:
f. remedy of new trial or reconsideration under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court
and
Prescription- within the 15-day period for perfecting an appeal
g. relief from judgment under Rule 38
Prescription- within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment
order or the proceeding and not more than 6 months after such
judgment or order was entered or such proceeding was taken

The aggrieved party also has such other remedies as:

h. Reversion under Section 101 of CA No. 141,
i. cancellation of title
j. Annulment of judgment under Rule 47
Prescription- based on extrinsic fraud must be within 4 years from its
discovery and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by
laches or estoppel.
k. Criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal Code
l. Quieting of title under Articles 476-481 of the Civil Code
2.
No, the allegations do not constitute extrinsic fraud.
It was held in the case of Sterling Investment Corp. v. Ruiz that fraud to be
ground for nullity of a judgment must be extrinsic to the litigation. Were not this the
rule there would be no end to litigations, perjury being of such common occurrence
in trials. In fact, under the opposite rule, the losing party could attack the judgment
at any time by attributing imaginary falsehood to his adversary's proofs. But the
settled law is that judicial determination however erroneous of matters brought
within the court's jurisdiction cannot be invalidated in another proceeding. It is the
business of a party to meet and repel his opponent's perjured evidence.
Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the successful party in a
litigation which is committed outside the trial of a case against the defeated party,
or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party is prevented
from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case. On the other hand, intrinsic
fraud refers to acts of a party in a litigation during the trial, such as the use of
forged instruments on perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation of
the case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case
In the case at bar, the petitioner is a party in the litigation during the trial,
therefore te fraud involved is intrinsic fraud.

6.
The fraud that would justify the review of a decree of registration is extrinsic
fraud.
It was held in Garingan vs. Garingan that the action to annul a judgment,
upon the ground of fraud, would be unavailing unless the fraud be extrinsic or
collateral and the facts upon which it is based have not been controverted or
resolved in the case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered.
Extrinsic or collateral fraud, as distinguished from intrinsic fraud, connotes any

fraudulent scheme executed by a prevailing litigant outside the trial of a case

against the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said
defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case. But
intrinsic fraud takes the form of acts of a party in a litigation during the trial, such as
the use of forged instruments or perjured testimony, which did not affect the
presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case.