Case Digest (G.R. No. 7867)
Facts:
Matute y Amasa v. Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 7867. November 18, 1914, the Supreme Court, Johnson, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Antonio Matute y Amasa filed, on December 28, 1906, an application in the Court of Land Registration to have five parcels in the pueblo of Davao, Mindanao, registered under the Torrens system; the original complaint alleged the parcels contained 1,785 hectares and an amended complaint (filed August 30, 1907) reduced that area to 1,511 hectares, 38 ares and 24 centares. On May 3, 1907, Gregorio Araneta, Attorney-General, appeared as opponent.
On January 31, 1908, petitioner moved to withdraw his application “reserving, however, the right to reproduce it afterwards in other proceedings,” and on October 16, 1908, Associate Judge Juan Sumulong granted the dismissal “without prejudice to his reproducing the same whenever he might deem it advisable so to do.” On March 22, 1910, petitioner moved to have the petition reinstated, expressly “reproducing in all its parts the petition presented,” and on April 1, 1910, Associate Judge Higinio Benitez ordered the cause included in the calendar for the next session in Davao.
On September 26, 1910, Attorney-General Ignacio Villamor excepted to the April 1, 1910 order and moved that the reopening be set aside, arguing the order was issued after more than a year elapsed from the dismissal and without new notices or citations to interested parties; he invoked the jurisdictional limits of a court in banc under section 8 of Act No. 1648. Three judges of the Court of Land Registration sitting in banc declined to intervene, holding they had no jurisdiction to modify Judge Benitez’s order for reinstatement.
The Attorney-General filed a formal opposition on November 17, 1910. Petitioner sought a further amendment (March 15, 1911) to change parcel E’s description. After trial, Associate Judge James A. Ostrand rendered decision on January 23, 1912: parcels A and B were denied registration for lack of proof of ownership; parcels C and D were ordered registered under subsection 5 of section 54 of Act No. 926; parcel E was ordered registered on the ground of thirty years’ open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership. On February 1–2, 1912, the Attorney-General excepted and moved for a new trial; the new-trial motion was denied and he appealed to the Supreme Court via bill of exceptions.
In the Supreme Court the Attorney-General proffered two assignments of error: (I) the April 1, 1910 order reopening the case was erro...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the April 1, 1910 order reopening the dismissed registration proceeding valid when more than a year had elapsed since the October 16, 1908 dismissal “without prejudice” and no new notices or citations were shown to have been issued?
- Did the Court of Land Registration have jurisdiction to decree registration of the parcels despite the asserted procedural defec...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)