REVIEW OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION

SEC. 32 Presidential Decree No. 1529

Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value

The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely, affected thereby nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase innocent purchaser for value or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value. Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the

Grounds for Review

This remedy is available to an aggrieved party within ONE YEAR after the date of entry of the decree of registration Applicant must have a estate or interest in the land No innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest therein There must be an ACTUAL FRAUD or EXTRINSIC FRAUD WANT OF DUE PROCESS may also be invoked where the decree was entered in compliance with a decision suffering from fatal

ACTUAL FRAUD intentional omission of a fact required by law to be stated in the application or a willful statement of a claim against the truth.

The purpose of the law in giving aggrieved parties, deprived of land or any interest, through fraud in the registration, the opportunity to review the decree is to ensure fair and honest dealing in the registration of the land

Extrinsic or Collateral Fraud Distinguished from Intrinsic Fraud

EXTRINS IC FRAUD

INTRINSI C FRAUD

Connotes any fraudulent scheme executed by a prevailing litigant outside the trial of a case against the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case. Acts of a party in a litigation during the trial, such as the use of forged instruments or perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case

May a petition for review of a decree under Section 38 of Act 496 (now Section 32 of PD 1529) be filed by an oppositor who has abandoned his opposition in a land registration case after a decision has been rendered and a decree of registration issued?
NO. The person(s) contemplated under Section 38 of Act 496 (now Sec 32 of PD 1529), 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 case. Crisolo vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-33093, December 29, 1975)

When Property is Transferred to an Innocent Purchaser for Value

INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE one who acquired the property for a valuable consideration not knowing that the title of the vendor or grantor was defective or void [Rivera vs Moran (GR No. L-24568 March 2, 1926)]. It includes innocent lessee, mortgagee or other encumbrancer for value. Where the certificate of registration was valid and the land in question was properly brought under the operation of the Torrens system, the concept of innocent purchaser for value properly comes into play. But where the land in question was never brought under the operation of the Torrens system , the concept of innocent purchaser for value cannot come into play.

It is well-settled that where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and order the cancellation of the certificate. [Davao Grains, Inc. vs Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 78209 March 31, 1989)] Everyone dealing with titled property whould have to check on the validity or invalidity of the original certificate of title would wreak havoc and impair public confidence on the Torrens system. [Santos vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 90380 September 13, 1990)]

Conclusiveness of the Decree of Registration

A land registration proceeding is in rem, therefore, the registration is binding upon and conclusive against all persons including the government and its branches [Sorongon et al. vs Makalintal et al. (45 OG 9 September 1949)]

Is it necessary that the Order of General Default be first lifted before a Petition to Review the Decree of Registration may be entertained?
NO. The law neither requires the lifting of the decree of general default issued in the case nor the attaching of any affidavit of merit to the petition for review. As long as there has been fraud in obtaining the decree of registration, by reason of which another person has been deprived of land or any interest therein and such person filed his petition for review within one year after the entry of the decree, then the decree may be opened
Cruz vs Del Valle (55 O.G. 9901, November 23, 1952) Samonte et al. vs Descallar et al (G.R. No. L-12964, February 29, 1960)

Effect of the Expiration of the Period for Review

Upon the expiration of the one-year period, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. After one year from the date of the degree, the sole remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is not to set aside the decree, but, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages. [Gonzales vs Intermediate Appellate Court (GR No. 69622, January 29, 1988)]

Collateral Attack on the Decree and Title not allowed

Attack must be direct and not by a collateral proceeding. The validity of the certificate of title in this regard can be threshed out only in an action expressly filed for the purpose. [Ybaez vs Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. L-68291, March 6, 1991)

DIRECT ATTACK

COLLATER AL ATTACK

Made through an action or proceeding the main object of which is to annul, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of such judgment, if not yet carried into effect ; or, if the property has been disposed of, the aggrieved party may sue for recovery Made when, in another action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is made as an incident in said action

RECONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY

It is the sole remedy of the land owner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is, after one year from the date of the decree, not to set aside the decree, as was done in the instant case, but, respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages. [Director of Lands et al. vs Register of Deeds of Rizal et al. (G.R. No. L-4463, March 24, 1953)

The true owner may bring an action to have the ownership or title to the land judicially settled and the Court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, without ordering the cancellation of the Torrens Title issued upon the patent[Linaza vs Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 73741, February 28, 1990)]

The term reconvey means to convey back to former place, or to transfer back to former owner, as an estate, and reconveyance being a transfer of realty back to the original or former grantor. (Lacorte vs. CA, 286 SCRA 24)

Requisites for Reconveyance

To warrant a reconveyance of the land, the following requisites must concur: (1) the action must be brought in the name of a person claiming ownership or dominical right over the land registered in the name of the defendant; (2) the registration of the land in the name of the defendant was procured through fraud or other illegal means; (3) the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value; and (4) the action is filed after the certificate of title had already become final and incontrovertible [New Regent Sources, Inc. v. Tanjuatco, (GR No. 168800, April 16, 2009)]

Nature of Action for Reconveyance

Action for reconveyance is an action in personam, judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. [ Ching vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-59731, January 11, 1990)]

When may an Action for Reconveyance be Filed

Action based on fraud - four years (Article 1391, New

Civil Code)

Action based on implied trust - ten years (Article

1144, New Civil Code)

Action based on a void contract imprescriptible (Article 1410, New Civil Code) (4) Action to quiet title where plaintiff is in possession imprescriptible - prescription does not run against the plaintiff in actual possession of the disputed land because such plaintiff has a right to wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating an action to vindicate his right. [Yared v. Tiongco (GR No.

A registered owner may be barred from recovering possession of the property by virtue of laches.

The person who was deprived of his property by fraud, whether actual or constructive, and was not at fault, may file such personal action for reconveyance

Action for Reconveyance Inpedendent and Distinct from Reopening of Decree

FRAUD UNDER SEC. 32

must be actual and means intentional omission of a fact required by law to be stated in the application for registration or a willful statement of a claim against the truth.
includes cases where the circumstances are such that the person who obtains a certificate of title in his name over a land belonging to another must be presumed to have full knowledge of the rights of the true owner

FRAUD UNDER SEC. 53