Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
1. Cadastral proceedings were initiated upon an application of the
Director of Lands. Notice of the proceedings were published in
the OG. General notice were also issued upon the order of the
trial judge to the interested parties.
2. Victoriano Siguenza presented an answer asking for registration
in his name of a lot. The petitioners, although said to have
participated in other cadastaral cases did not enter any
opposition as to this lot. They were declared in general default.
3. The trial court issued a decree declaring Lot No. 1608 to
Victoriano Siguenza and Marcela Guanzon (September 21 1916)
4. On November 23, the court declared final the decree.
5. 8 months later before the issuance by the Land Registration
Office of the so called technical decree, petitioners set up their
ownership over Lot 1608 contending that they were in complete
ignorance of the proceedings, asked that the judgment of the
court be annulled and the case be reopened.
6. The court denied the motion for new trial on the ground that
there was already a decree rendered, and than no allegation of
fraud having been made, the court lacked jurisdiction.
o Counsel for petitioners have not raised, the question of
fraud nor have they asked to be relieved from a judgment
or order because of FAME.
o As a matter of fact they could not claim fraud because the
proceedings were public.
o They may not appeal the issuance of decree having
become final
7. Petitioners contention:
o The cadastral proceedings did not become final until the
formal decree was issued by the Land Registration Office,
then it was proper for them to ask for a reopening of the
case, and it would, consequently, be just as proper for this
court to order the trial court to permit the same.
ISSUE: When does the registration of title, under the Torrens System of
Land Registration, especially under the different Philippine laws
establishing the Cadastral System, become final, conclusive, and
indisputable?