G.R. Nos. 27498 and 27499 (Consolidated)
October 10, 1927

Intestate Estate of Marcelino Tongco, represented by JOSEFA TONGCO, administratrix, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANASTACIA VIANZON, defendant-appellee; and THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, applicant, vs. MARCELINO TONGCO ET AL., claimants. ANASTACIA VIANZON, petitioner-appellee; JOSEFA TONGCO, administratrix of the estate of Marcelino Tongco, oppositor-appellant.

DOCTRINE: In a cadastral proceeding, where a decree of registration was obtained by fraud and a petition for review is filed within one year from the entry of the decree, the court may, upon finding fraud, order the cancellation of the fraudulent decree and the issuance of a new decree and certificate of title in the name of the true owner.

FACTS

1. These are consolidated cases involving a cadastral proceeding ( G.R. No. 27499 ) and an ordinary civil case ( G.R. No. 27498 ).
2. In the cadastral case, Marcelino Tongco (husband) filed claims for Lots Nos. 1062, 1263, and 491, seeking their registration in the name of the conjugal partnership.
3. After a hearing, the evidence established that the true owner of the lots was Anastacia Vianzon (the widow), not the conjugal partnership.
4. The trial court, finding that the decree was obtained in the name of Marcelino Tongco through fraud, ordered the cancellation of the original decree and the issuance of new decrees and certificates of title in the name of Anastacia Vianzon.
5. Josefa Tongco, as administratrix of Marcelino Tongco’s estate, appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
6. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking a modification of the affirmed judgment specifically in the cadastral case ( G.R. No. 27499 ). Appellant argued that the proper remedy, based on the case of *Salva vs. Salvador*, was not to issue a new decree directly in favor of Vianzon in the same proceeding, but to require her to file a separate application for registration.

ISSUE

In a cadastral proceeding where a decree of registration was obtained by fraud, may the court, upon a petition for review filed within one year, order the cancellation of the fraudulent decree and the direct issuance of a new decree and certificate of title in the name of the true owner, or must the true owner file a separate application for registration?

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the motion for reconsideration and upheld its affirmance of the trial court’s judgment.

The Court distinguished the cited case of *Salva vs. Salvador*, which was an action under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act (Ordinary Registration). In such ordinary proceedings, the remedy for a deprived party is to file a separate application.

However, the present case is a cadastral proceeding, which is initiated by the government. All parties claiming interest in the land are required to submit their claims. There is no “application” in the traditional sense by individual claimants; they simply assert their claims. Therefore, the procedural rule from ordinary registration cases does not strictly apply.

The Court held that the most direct and logical remedy in a cadastral case, once fraud is proven in a timely petition for review, is to cancel the decree procured by fraud and issue a new one in the name of the true owner. This straight path avoids unnecessary circuity and effectively corrects the fraud committed within the same proceeding.