Case Digest (G.R. No. 36265)
Facts:
Agapito Sugayan et al. v. Paulino Solis y Suniga and Isidro Paredes, G.R. No. 36265, November 06, 1931, the Supreme Court En Banc, Imperial, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Agapito Sugayan et al.; respondents are Paulino Solis y Suniga (claimant in the cadastral proceeding) and Isidro Paredes, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The petition was filed under Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside a judgment rendered by the respondent judge on February 4, 1929 in cadastral Case No. 41 (G. L. R. O., Cad. Rec. No. 925) and to restrain execution pending further order.
The antecedent litigation began in Civil Case No. 4753 (Court of First Instance of Pangasinan), in which Solis sued the petitioners for recovery of property; the trial court absolved the defendants and declared them owners of the land identified as Lot No. 3183 in the cadastral proceeding. Solis appealed that judgment to the Supreme Court (docketed as G.R. No. 30145). Because the stenographer could not transcribe notes, the Supreme Court on August 15, 1929 remanded the case for a new trial.
While the new trial in G.R. No. 30145 was pending, the cadastral proceeding (Cadastral Case No. 41) proceeded. The court entered a decree of default, then took up Lot No. 3183, which at that time was claimed only by Solis. The hearing occurred in the absence of the petitioners, who later alleged they had filed an answer that was mislaid. On February 4, 1929 the cadastral court rendered judgment adjudicating the land and improvements to Solis; a final decree was issued thereafter and, according to respondents' pleadings, an original certificate of title No. 37303 issued on August 2, 1930 (respondents also alleged an undivided half had been sold to an innocent purchaser, Regino Solis).
The petitioners became aware of the registration and issuance of the certificate only on August 25, 1931, when the sheriff served a writ of possession at the instance of Paulino Solis and demanded they vacate the lot. Believing that a year had elapsed since issuance of the final decree and that they had no speedy or adequate remedy in the trial court, the petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court under Section 513, while securing from the Court of First Instance a stay of execution of the writ of possession pending the Supreme Court proceeding.
Respondents admitted most factual allegations but denied that the petitioners could avail themselves of Section 513; they asserted the lot had been adjudicated to Solis by the cadastral judgment of February 4, 1929, that the final decree and certificate had been issued, that the petitioners did not in fact file an answer at the hearing, and that the proper remedies are those provided under the Land Registration Act.
The Supreme Court considered whether Section 513 of the Code of...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May petitioners invoke Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside or annul a final decree of registration and the certificate of title issued in cadastral proceeding...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)