G.R. No. L-21163 - Libudan vs. Gil

In 1937, Pascual Libudan filed a petition for registration of 188,725 square meters of land in Barrio Babac, Samal, Davao, asserting title by inheritance from his father and continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since time immemorial.
Jose Palma Gil, who claimed he purchased the land from Mangob (Samal), initially opposed the registration petition, later amending his opposition to cover only 15 hectares delimited in the submitted plan.

Shortly after amending his opposition (August 1939), Jose Palma Gil filed a civil ejectment case (Civil Case No. 204) before the Justice of the Peace Court of Samal, seeking the ejectment of Libudan from the 15-hectare portion.
A judgment rendered in December 1939 ordered Libudan to vacate the premises, restore possession to Palma Gil, and pay damages based on the value of products taken from the land.

In September 1940, the Davao Land Registration Court rendered a decision that confirmed the title:

During the pendency of Libudan’s appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Sheriff of Davao, executing a writ of execution from the civil case, seized the 31,040-square-meter lot and sold it at a public auction on December 27, 1940 to Jose Palma Gil.
Libudan’s failure to redeem the property within the statutory period led to the issuance of a final deed of sale (recorded in January 1944) and the delivery of possession to Palma Gil.

The records of the registration case were destroyed during World War II while pending before the Court of Appeals.
As the Court of Appeals was unable to reconstitute the records, the case was remanded for a new trial in October 1951.
In the interim, on February 21, 1950, the administratrix of Palma Gil’s estate initiated Civil Case No. 458 before the Davao Court of First Instance to recover possession and ownership of the 31,040-square-meter parcel, alleging illegal entry after Palma Gil’s death in December 1944.

The registration case continued, and in a new trial the Davao Land Registration Court, on May 29, 1954, decreed registration of the entire 18.8725-hectare land in favor of Libudan’s heirs.
The Court of Appeals later affirmed the registration decree and rejected Palma Gil’s contention that the property acquired from Mangob comprised the disputed portion.
On July 25, 1958, during the pendency of the registration case, new substituted applicants (heirs representing Libudan, namely Awad Samal, Tawang Samal, Intos Samal, Trining Cortes, and Camayama Pacay) appeared, replacing Palinkud Samal.
In December 1961 and early 1962, procedural motions were filed by both parties:

Libudan’s heirs moved for the issuance of a registration decree and a writ of execution.
The heirs of Palma Gil filed a “Petition to Review Judgment and/or Substitution,” alleging fraud and other irregularities in the registration proceedings.

Whether the facts in Libudan’s petition for review constituted fraud within Section 38, Act 496 that could warrant the reopening and review of the final judgment of the Registration Court.
Whether the trial court erred in granting the alternative petition for substitution (under Section 29, Act 496) based solely on pleadings without a formal hearing, presentation of witnesses, or proper evidentiary submission.

Libudan allegedly procured the survey in his own name while employed by Palma Gil around 1915–1916, concealing the true ownership by misrepresenting the boundaries.
Fabrication of a new tax declaration (No. L-048) to counter earlier findings which stated that the property consisted of a much smaller area than claimed later.
Assertions that neither Libudan nor his alleged successors ever truly possessed the land continuously from time immemorial.

The oppositors also contended that the rights acquired by Palma Gil at the sheriff’s auction, and subsequently confirmed by the courts, should preclude the substitution remedy for only part of the land.

Whether the allegations of fraud (surreptitiously obtaining the survey, fabricating a tax declaration, and misrepresenting possession) amounted to extrinsic fraud as defined under Section 38, Act 496, thus justifying the reopening or review of the registration judgment.
Whether such fraud—if any—was intrinsic and had been adequately controverted and decided in prior litigation, rendering a new review unnecessary.

Whether the trial court erred by granting the oppositors’ alternative petition for substitution under Section 29, Act 496 solely on the pleadings, without a formal evidentiary hearing and presentation of witnesses.
Whether reliance on annexed documents that were not formally admitted as evidence contravened the requirements of Section 72, Rule 123 (now Rule 132, Sec. 35).

Whether the 31,040-square-meter portion purchased by Palma Gil at the sheriff’s sale is judicially determined to be part of the larger parcel (18.8725 hectares) applied for by Libudan and subsequently adjudicated in the registration proceedings.
Whether the doctrine of res judicata (or estoppel by judgment) bars the substituted applicants from raising different ownership claims over the disputed portion, given the prior confirmation of title in both the registration and civil cases.

Whether the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance over Civil Case No. 458, through which Palma Gil’s title was confirmed, precludes any later questions regarding the authority or validity of its judgment.
Whether the procedural technicalities, such as admissions in pleadings and failure to present alternative evidence, affect the integrity and finality of the judgments rendered.