91.

CRISOLOGO VS CA

FACTS: On August 20, 1965, CFI ordered the registration and issuance of decree of land in
the name of spouses, Pedro C. Crisolo and Soledad de G. Crisolo. Within one year from the
issuance of the decree, Alberta Reinoso, as guardian of her brother Pelagio who was allegedly
confined in the National Psychopatic Hospital filed a Petition for Review with the allegations
that said spouses by means of brazen and actual fraud induced and/or caused Pelagio
Reinoso to sign a Deed of Exchange whereby the property was exchanged for defendants'
property but never delivered the possession. The records show that the oppositors Alberta
Reinoso and Brigido were the only ones who have perfected their opposition. During the
hearing on March 5, 1964, the announced opposition of the oppositors Pelagio Reinoso and
his children were considered abandoned.

ISSUE: WoN an oppositor in a land registration case, after having abandoned his opposition
thereto and a decision and a decree had been issued in the case, is entitled to a reopening of
the decree of registration by means of a petition for review.

HELD: NO. 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. Such is
not the situation of the private respondents here. They were not denied their day in court by
fraud, which the law provides as the sole ground for reopening of the decree of registration.

92. FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT VS. TRONO

FACTS: George, Ma. Teresa, Edgardo, Ma. Virginia, Jesse, Ma. Cristina, Inocencio, Jr.,
Carmen, and Zenaida, all surnamed Trono, herein respondents, filed an application for
registration of a parcel of land. The above-named petitioners filed their opposition to LRC Case
No. M-228 alleging that as per Survey Plan Psu-31086, respondents’ property partly overlaps
their lot. As early as April 28, 1989, this lot was registered in their names. Earlier, or on July
25, 1995, Ayala Land, Inc. (Ayala Land) also filed an opposition to respondents’ application for
registration anchored on the ground that the land applied for overlaps the parcels of land.
Thereafter, petitioners and Ayala Land filed their respective motions to dismiss respondents’
application for registration on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. They claimed that “since the
property was previously Torrens registered in their names, the trial court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the proceedings.”

ISSUE: WoN the respondents has the right to question the titles of the petitioners.

HELD: NO. A decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive not only
on the questions actually contested and determined, but also upon all matters that might be
litigated or decided in the land registration proceedings. As per records of the Registry of
Deeds the overlap lots was registered in petitioners’ name as early as April 28, 1989, or five
(5) years before the filing of respondents’ application for registration. Thus, it is too late for
them (respondents) to question petitioners’ titles considering that the Certificates of Title
issued to the latter have become incontrovertible after the lapse of one year from the decree of
registration.

93. ALMARZA VS ARGUELLES

FACTS: Lot No. 5815 originally belonged to private respondents' predecessor-in-interest,

Romualdo Grana. In 1929, he sold a portion to petitioner and her husband, the late Leon
Almarza. After the sale, said portion was physically segregated from the whole lot and was
taken possession of by petitioner and her husband, who since then had been in continuous,
peaceful, open and adverse possession thereof, cultivating and gathering the produce thereof
and declaring the same in their names for taxation purposes. On July 25, 1950, the cadastral
court declared Gil and Balbina Pancrudo owner of one-half undivided share of Lot No. 5815
and the late Laura Pancrudo as owner of the other undivided half share. Pursuant to a decree
of title, Original Certificate of Title No. 0-134, covering the entire Lot 5815 was issued in the
name of said adjudicatees on May 29, 1951. On April 20, 1977, private respondents Asuncion
and Gilda Arguelles and Gil and Balbina Pancrudo instituted petitioner for recovery of the
7,300 sq.m. portion of Lot No. 5815 in her possession and for damages. Basis of the action
was OCT No. 0-134 issued on May 29, 1951. Petitioner, in turn, interposed a counterclaim for
reconveyance of the disputed portion of Lot No. 5815 in her favor.

ISSUE: May the possessor en concepto de dueno of a parcel of land, after the lapse of more
than ten years from the issuance of a Torrens Certificate of Title to another person ask the
latter to reconvey the land?

HELD: Private respondents obtained OCT No. 0-134 on May 29,1951. Their action was
instituted only on April 20, 1977, or after a lapse of twenty-six [26] years. The neglect or failure
of private respondents to assert their alleged right under the certificate of title for such
unreasonable length of time makes them guilty of laches.' They should now be held either to
have abandoned or waived whatever right they may have under said certificate of title.

94. BAUTISTA-BORJA VS BAUTISTA

FACTS: Petitioner Natividad Bautista- Borja (Natividad), one of the five children of deceased
Spouses spouses Bautista, claimed that Iluminada Bautista, et al., through fraud and
deception, convinced her to take possession and cultivate some agricultural lands that will
eventually be partitioned. Unknown to Natividad, however, the titles to the lands were
cancelled by virtue of Deeds of Sale executed on different dates by her parents in favor of her
siblings Simplicio and Francisco, a fact which she found out subsequent to her possession and
cultivation of the said lands. Natividad thus filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) for Annulment of the Deeds of Sale and/or Partition of Properties. The RTC dismissed
the complaint for lack of cause of action, prescription and laches.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Natividad‘s cause of action has already prescribed

HELD: No. From the earlier quoted-allegations in Natividad‘s complaint, it is clear that
her action is one for declaration of the nullity of the Deeds of Sale which she claims to
be either falsified ─ because at the time of the execution thereof, Pablo was already gravely ill
and bedridden, hence he could not have gone and appeared before the Notary Public, much
less understood the significance and legal deeds ─ and/or because there was no consideration
therefor. Clearly, following Article 1410 of the Civil Code, petitioner‘s action is imprescriptible.
But even if Natividad‘s complaint were to be taken as one for reconveyance, given that it is
based on an alleged void contract, it is just the same as imprescriptible.