GR 15299; (September, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. 15299 ; September 10, 1920
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner-appellee, vs. JOSE ABADA, ET AL., objectors. GREGORIO MONTINOLA, appellant.
FACTS:
Gregorio Montinola was the registered owner under Torrens Title No. 66 of a lot in Iloilo City. In 1914, Cadastral Survey No. 8007 was instituted, and Montinola claimed an adjoining parcel designated as Lot 1-A. The court reserved its decision in that case. Simultaneously, Cadastral Survey No. 9793 was conducted in the same area. After due publication and hearing where no opposition was entered, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision on August 29, 1916, adjudicating Lot No. 1078, among others, to the Government of the Philippine Islands. The decision made specific reference to Cadastral Survey No. 8007. Montinola took no action in Cadastral Case No. 9793. Approximately two years and three months later, Montinola filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, alleging that Lot 1-A in Cadastral Survey No. 8007 was the same as Lot 1078 adjudicated to the Government. He sought to reopen the case and be declared the owner of Lot 1078. The provincial fiscal opposed the motion on the ground that the statutory period for filing a motion for a new trial had lapsed. The trial court denied Montinola’s motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in denying Gregorio Montinola’s motion to reopen the cadastral case and adjudicate Lot No. 1078 in his favor, filed long after the finality of the judgment.
RULING:
No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the lower court. The cadastral system requires claimants to actively assert and substantiate their claims during the proceedings or risk losing their property. When Cadastral Survey No. 9793 was initiated with proper publication, Montinola was obligated to enter his opposition and present his evidence. He failed to do so. The judgment of August 29, 1916, adjudicating the lot to the Government, became final and irrevocable when Montinola did not seek its revocation within the statutory period. The principle of vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the laws aid the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights) applies. The Court emphasized the necessity of defending the certainty and integrity of the Torrens and cadastral systems, even at the potential expense of individual litigants who neglect their procedural duties.