REPUBLIC

vs.

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellant,

SEGUNDO SIOSON and PASCUALA BAUTISTA, respondents-appellees.

G.R. No. L-13687

November 29, 1963

Facts:
his is an appeal certified by the Court of Appeals to this Court,
because in its opinion "the only purpose of the instant appeal is to
question the propriety of the lower court's order denying the petition to
review on the grounds alleged therein," which is purely a question of law,
the review of which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction this Court.
It appears that on 6 November 1951, in the Court of First Instance of
Bulacan the spouses Segundo Sioson Pascuala Bautista filed an
application for registration four (4) parcels of land situated in barrio San
Roque, municipality of Paombong, province of Bulacan, delimited in plan
Psu-12152, attached to their application, of which the claimed to be the
owners in fee simple.
On 20 March 1951, the Director of Lands filed an opposition to one of the
parcels of land the registration which was applied for stating (a) that
neither the applicants nor their predecessors in interest had sufficient
title to the said parcel of land, the same not having been a acquired
either by composicion title from the Spanish Government or by
possessory information title under the Royal Decree of February 13,
1894; (b) that neither the applicants nor their predecessors in interest
have possesses the land openly, continuously, publicly, adversely and
under bona fide claim of ownership since July 26, 1894; all (e) that the
said parcel of land sought to be registered is a part of the public domain
and as such belong to the Republic of the Philippines.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents have complied all the necessary
requirements under section 14 (1) of PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1529
to acquire the said subject parcel of land.

Held:
No. The respondents have not complied with the necessary
requirements, two (2) errors claimed to have been committed by the lower
court, to wit:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO EXTRINSIC OR
COLLATERAL FRAUD HAD BEEN COMMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES IN COLLUSION WITH OTHERS,
AGAINST THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, IN EFFECTING THE REGISTRATION OF A PORTION
OF THE LAND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INSTANT CASE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT THEREFORE ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
PETITION AT BAR WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO
THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF THE SAME.
The petition for review is predicated on actual and extrinsic fraud
committed by the respondents, then applicant, and was filed within a
year from the entry of the decree. Without hearing the evidence in
support of the allegation and claim that actual and extrinsic fraud had
been committed by the respondents the Court below denied the petition.
This is an error.