Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FERNANDO, J.:

The law is definitely on the side of the applicants, now appellees. It is provided in Section 38 of the Land Registration Act that a decree of registration may be reopened and thereafter set aside on the ground of fraud. ¹ In two decisions, Frias v. Esquivel ² and Baldoz v. Papa, ³ there is a reiteration of the doctrine in accordance with the above provision that the final decree of registration issued in accordance with law is reviewable within one year and upon the ground of fraud. As was emphasized by Justice Dizon, the ponente in both cases, fraud is present when a party is deprived of his day in court, thus preventing him from asserting his right to the property registered in the name of applicants. That is a doctrine that goes back to Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, ⁴ a 1910 decision, which Identified fraud with the intention to deprive another of [his] just rights" ⁵ sufficing to constitute its "essential characteristic ..." ⁶ The Grey Alba decision was repeatedly cited with approval in subsequent cases. ⁷ The latest case in point reaffirming such a doctrine is Minlay v. Sandoval, ⁸ decided in 1973. For the law cannot look with approval on a claimant not being accorded the right to be heard unless, of course, such opportunity was lost through his own fault. That would not be in consonance with the dictates of procedural due process.

All that is necessary to show that there is no fraud is to state the findings of fact of the lower court as set forth in the decision which had become final and executory. Thus: "On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court finds the opposition of the Abilas not well taken. It appears that the late Carlos Abila executed an acknowledgment on June 1, 1929 that the land he was occurring located in the sitio of Bariw barrio of Buga municipality of Libon, Albay belonged to the late Jacinto Manila who is the father of the applicants. The oppositors have not explained what their father Carlos Abila executed the acknowledgment if in truth and in fact, he possessed the land in the concept of an owner In Exhibit 4 that was executed by the late Jacinta Slat, she said that the land she was occupying which has an area of 2 hectares more or less, is located in sitio Balatigno barrio of Buga municipality of Libon, Albay. This exhibit shows that the predecessors-in-interest of the oppositors have occupied a land different from the land sought to be registered. In fact, the tax declaration of the parcels of land in the names of the heirs of Benita Sayson and the heirs of Faustina Sayson show that the land of Benita Sayson and Faustina Sayson who are the daughters of Jacinta Slat art, located in sitio Balatigno barrio of Buga municipality of Libon, Albay." ⁹ Then came this portion: "It appearing that the possession of the applicants of the land sought to be registered dated more than 30 years preceding the filing of the application and that said possession has been continuous, public and in the concept of an owner, the applicants are entitled to have their title to the land confirmed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph b of Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, known as the Public Land Law as amended by Republic Act No. 1942. ¹⁰

Footnotes