CAL v.

ZOSA  The Court herein ruled that the petitioners failed to prove
Topic: Section 32, PD 1529; Remedies fraud on the part of Zosa
 Petitioners failed to prove that Zosa employed deliberate
FACTS: misrepresentation such as deliberately failing to notify the
 Four children (Jimeno siblings) inherited the estate of their party entitled to notice, or in including him not to oppose an
parents – including a parcel of land which is the land in application, or in misrepresenting about the identity of the lot
question to the true owner by the applicant causing the former to
 The land was located in Toledo City withdraw his application. All these acts constitute as extrinsic
 Had tax declarations fraud – however, none of these was ever proved by
 Respondent Zosa was hired by the four siblings as their petitioners herein.
counsel
 The siblings executed a deed of assignment in favor of PETITION DEINED
Respondent Zosa
 The deed of assignment included the land in question
 The said deed of assignment was approved by the trial court
 The siblings then sold the said land to Barba
 In the meantime, the Bureau of Lands effected a cadastral
survey over the lots located in Toledo City – it included the
land in question
 The Director of the Bureau of Lands then filed with the City
Court of Toledo City a petition for registration of the said land
in the name of any claimant found to be entitled thereto
 Respondent Zosa claimed ownership of the land
 Such claim was opposed by Barba, stating that the said land
was sold to him by the siblings and that he already
subsequently sold the same to Tango-an who then sold it to
petitioners herein
 The RTC ruled in favor of Zosa; affirmed by the CA
 Petitioners argue that Zosa employed extrinsic fraud in
registering the said property

ISSUE: WON Zosa employed fraud

HELD:
 NO