Petitioner’s Arguments:
CA and ALBERTA REINOSO, AS GUARDIAN OF PELAGIO REINOSO o During the hearing of the petition for review or reopening of the
FACTS: decree of registration, no oral or documentary evidence was
On Aug 20, 1965, CFI ordered registration of Lots 1&2, Plan Psu-189357 presented by Reinoso to prove the grounds alleged by him in
in Poblacion of Mabini, Pangasinan, and more particularly bounded and said petition;
described in the technical descriptions in the name of applicant Sps o that no affidavit of merits was submitted or attached to the
Pedro C. Crisolo and Soledad de G. Crisolo. petition for review; that no question of fact was decided by CFI
On Sep 20, 1965, the court ordered the issuance of the Decree, followed 3 in its order of May 13, 1966;
months later by writ of possession in favor of the spouses. o that the issues involved in the petition for review are the same
On Feb 15, 1966, within 1 year from issuance of the decree, Alberta legal issues involved in the instant appeal which are,
Reinoso, as guardian of her brother Pelagio who was allegedly confined won Pelagiois entitled to a review or reopening of the
in the National Psychopatic Hospital filed a Petition for Review under decree of registration, considering that he was a party
Section 38 of Act 496, alleging: oppositor in the original land registration case;
o In 1952, applicants Sps. Crisolo, taking advantage of the insanity won intrinsic fraud alleged in the petition for review is a
and incapacity of Pelagio Reinoso by means of actual fraud good ground for the reopening of the decree of
caused Pelagio to sign a Deed of Exchange whereby above- registration;
described property was exchanged for defendants' property won fraud which is merely alleged and not proved, can
o Applicants Sps. Crisolo never delivered the possession of the be a valid ground for the reopening or review of a
property to herein guardian nor to any representatives of decree of registration;
incompetent Pelagio o and that the aforestated issues involve purely questions of law
o while Pelagio was confined, applicants Sps instituted a Land within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of SC
Registration case (LRC No. 154) and obtained a decree therefor, Petitioner contends that Pelagio announced his opposition during the
based on the fictitious and fraudulent Deed of Exchange, a copy initial hearing of the original land registration proceedings, assisted by
of which is attached and made integral part of this petition. his counsel, Atty. Orlando Catalan, on Sep2, 1963 and was given 15 days
CFI issued the order of May 13, 1966, denying Alberta’s petition. to formalize his opposition in writing;
Alberta filed an appeal: o that Pelagio failed to formalize in writing his announced
o won lower court erred in denying the petition for reopening opposition within the period given him by the trial court and so
Meanwhile, demolition of house belonging to oppositor Alberta on the his opposition was ordered dismissed;
land in controversy was stayed until further orders in view of the appeal. o that private respondent was, therefore, afforded his day in court
While the appeal was pending in CA, petitioner filed therein a Motion to to prove his right to the land subject of registration but forfeited
Remand the Case to SC, claiming that the appeal involves purely question the opportunity given him by sleeping on his rights;
of law and, therefore, falls within exclusive jurisdiction of SC o that the persons contemplated in Section 38 of Act 496, who are
CA, nevertheless rendered the decision now subject of this instant entitled to a review of a decree of registration, are those who
petition for certiorari, the dispositive portion of which reads: had no opportunity to be heard in the original land registration
o CFI order dated May 13, 1966, set aside and the case remanded case and/or had not been party oppositors therein;
to the trial court for further proceedings under Sec 38 of Act 496 o respondent shouldn’t be given another day in court for he had
From the aforementioned decision, after MR had been denied, petitioner been so afforded once but forfeited it through his own
interposed this appeal for review and reversal thereof. negligence.
Petitioner further maintains that fraud was not proved; case. Such is not the situation of the private respondents here. They were
o that no iota of proof on this matter was ever presented by not denied their day in court by fraud, which the law provides as the sole
private respondent; ground for reopening of the decree of registration. In fact they opposed
o in order that a decree of registration may be set aside and the registration but failed to substantiate their opposition.
ordered reopened, the allegation of fraud must firstly be duly Mere allegation of fraud is not enough. Specific, intentional acts to
established by proper evidence. deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some manner injure
ISSUES + RULING: him, must be alleged and proved.
1. WON the appeal in question is within jurisdiction of CA. NO There must be actual or positive fraud as distinguished from constructive
While it is true that “whether a transaction shows fraud or not” is a fraud to entitle one to the reopening of a decree of registration. And it
question of fact, the question raised on appeal, according to the very must be extrinsic and not intrinsic fraud.
decision of CA, is "the question of whether the lower court erred in This is necessary to maintain the stability of judicial decisions and save
denying the petition for reopening" on the ground that the defense of the precious time of the courts from being wasted by unnecessary
fraud, which consisted of the alleged nullity of the deed of exchange, was proceedings (clogging of dockets)
available to respondent during the proceedings in the original land
registration case, but was never availed of when he abandoned his CA reversed. The judgment of the trial court of May 13, 1966, denying the
opposition to the registration of the land involved. petition for review is reinstated and affirmed, without prejudice to whatever
The question elevated to CA certainly involves purely a question of law right, if any, that may still be availed of under existing law by respondent.
and therefore beyond jurisdiction of CA. (jurisdiction of SC)
2. WON an oppositor in a land registration case, after having
abandoned his opposition thereto and a decision and a decree had
been issued in the case, is entitled to a reopening of the decree of
registration by means of a petition for review based on fraud under
Section 38 of Act 496. NOT ENTITLED.
Respondent had been duly afforded the opportunity to object to, the
registration and substantiate the same. The decision of the lower court
dated Aug 20, 1965, states:
o Atty. Orlando Catalan, also appeared to announce the opposition
of Pelagio and his children, Alberta Reinoso and Brigido Reinoso.
This announced oppositions refer to both lots of the application.
The oppositors were given 15 days to submit their announced
opposition in writing. Alberta and Brigido were the only ones
who have perfected their opposition. During the hearing on
March 5, 1964, upon motion by the counsel for the applicants,
the announced opposition of the oppositors Pelagio Reinoso and
his children were considered abandoned.
The person(s) contemplated under Sec 38 of Act 496, to be entitled to a
review of a decree of registration, are those who were fraudulently
deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the original registration