2. Review of Decree of Registration

Vis-à-vis the Torrens System

A duly registered levy on attachment takes precedence over a prior unregistered sale. This is not diminished by the subsequent registration of the prior sale. This is consistent with the fundamental principle of the Torrens system that registration is the operative act that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. (Suntay v. Keyser Mercantile, Inc., 2014).

Q: Flora and Clemente filed an application for registration of a parcel of land before the RTC. During the proceedings, the LRA issued a report stating that the parcel of land was previously the subject of registration in another case and had already been adjudicated to another person. However, there is no record of the identity of the person to whom the property was adjudicated to because the records of the case, including a copy of the decision, were not available. The RTC thus granted registration and nullified the order of the cadastral court. Was the RTC correct?

A: YES. A regional trial court has no power to nullify or interfere with the decision of a co-equal court pursuant to the law and the doctrine of judicial stability. However, the foregoing presupposes that the decision of a co-equal cadastral court really existed and that there actually is a decision in that case. The doctrine of judicial stability thus finds no application in this case. Practical considerations now demand that the proceedings in the RTC be no longer disturbed. It would be the height of injustice for the heirs to be held hostage or punished by reason of the plain scarcity of the records. (Republic of the Philippines v. Tapay, et al., G.R. No. 157719, 2 Mar. 2022, as penned by J. Hernando)

Review of Decree of Registration

Remedy available in cases of actual fraud committed in the adjudication or confirmation of title. (P.D. 1529, § 32.)

Party to File (P.D. 1529, § 32.)

• Any aggrieved party, including persons deprived of opportunity to be heard, including the government
• Aggrieved party does not need to be an oppositor or original claimant in the proceedings

Parties who Cannot File

• An oppositor who abandoned his claim
• An oppositor who had notice of the proceedings but failed to raise his claims (Crisolo v. CA, G.R. No. L-33093, Dec. 29, 1975.)

Requisites for Review (ReDeFFiN)

• Petitioner was deprived of land or of an estate or interest therein by the adjudication or confirmation of title;
• Through Fraud;
• Petition is Filed not later than 1 year from entry of the decree of registration; and
• The property has Not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value

Fraud

Extrinsic fraud refers to a fraud committed to the unsuccessful party by his opponent, preventing him from fully exhibiting his case by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or when an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat. (Baclaran Marketing Corp. v. Nieva, G.R. No. 189881, Apr. 19, 2017.)

Different kinds of fraud exist, but the law allowing fraud as a ground for a review or reopening of a land registration decree contemplates actual and extrinsic fraud. Actual fraud “proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.” (Mendoza v. Valte, G.R. No. 172961, Sep. 7, 2015.)

Intrinsic fraud refers to the acts of a party at a trial that prevented a fair and just determination of the case, but the difference is that the acts or things, like falsification and false testimony, could have been litigated and determined at the trial or adjudication of the case. (Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far East Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No. 159926, Jan. 20, 2014.)

Examples of Extrinsic Fraud

• When the applicants for registration suppressed the fact that the petitioners (for review of decree) were the legal and rightful owners of the land in question, and that the applicants merely possessed the land as antichretic creditors
• When the applicant omits other persons’ interests and claims on the land
• Deliberate misrepresentation that the land involved was uncontested
• Obtaining adjudication in the name of a coowner, which the applicant knew had not been allotted to him in the partition
• Intentionally concealing facts
• Conniving with the land inspector
• Deliberately failing to notify parties entitled to notice
• Misrepresenting the identity of the land involved
• Inducing a party not to oppose the application
• Deliberately failing to disclose possession by other persons (Ramirez v. CA, G.R. L-38185, Sep. 24, 1986.)

Note: In all cases, the allegation of fraud must be substantiated with specific, intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right (Crisolo v. CA, G.R. No. L-33093, Dec. 29, 1975.)