G.R. No. 32598 , December 29, 1930
MARTIN GONZALEZ, applicant-appellee, vs. SISENANDO TURLA, ET AL., oppositors. SISENANDO TURLA, appellant.

FACTS

In 1918, Martin Gonzalez applied for the registration of a large tract of land in Lubao, Pampanga. Sisenando Turla opposed, claiming two parcels within Gonzalez’s land: one (49 hectares) for which he filed his own application, and another unregistered parcel. The trial court initially denied Turla’s application and ordered registration in favor of Gonzalez. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and registered the 49-hectare parcel in favor of Turla in 1922. Meanwhile, another claimant, Ponciano Mauricio, asserted rights over a portion of Gonzalez’s land (Lot No. 2), which included Turla’s unregistered parcel. After mandamus proceedings, a new trial was held. Turla, believing his earlier appeal sufficed, did not appeal from the new trial’s judgment, which again favored Gonzalez. The Supreme Court, on Mauricio’s appeal, affirmed the registration of Lot No. 2, including Turla’s claimed parcel, in favor of Gonzalez on December 31, 1927. Turla’s motion for reconsideration was denied. After the final decree was issued on October 31, 1928, Turla filed a motion in the trial court on July 15, 1929, seeking to reverse the decree and present his evidence anew.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying Sisenando Turla’s motion for review of the final decree of registration.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Turla’s motion. A review of a final decree under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ) is permissible only on the ground of fraud committed by the person in whose favor the decree was issued. The record showed no fraud on the part of Martin Gonzalez in obtaining the decree. Turla’s failure to timely appeal from the new trial’s judgment was his own fault. Furthermore, the Court noted that Turla’s testimony as a witness for Ponciano Mauricio was “clearly untrue,” implying that even if an appeal had been taken, it would likely not have succeeded. Therefore, the final decree of registration in favor of Gonzalez stands.