Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11837)
Facts:
Magdalena G. Vda. de Cuaycong v. Cristeta L. Vda. de Sengbengco, G.R. No. L-11837, November 29, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner-appellant Magdalena G. Vda. de Cuaycong (hereafter appellant) sought review of two orders of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental dated May 8 and July 21, 1954. Respondent-oppositer Cristeta L. Vda. de Sengbengco (hereafter appellee) was the registered owner under a decree and certificate of title covering Lot No. 903 of the Sagay Cadastre.
By a decision of the Court of First Instance dated September 5, 1935, Lot 903 was ordered registered one-half in the name of Mrs. Sengbengco and the other half in the name of the heirs of J. Clayton Nichols. The decree and the original certificate of title followed on November 21 and December 12, 1935. The heirs of Rafael Balila, who had earlier filed an answer claiming Lot 903 (their claim appearing in the 1923 proceedings), moved on September 8, 1936 for reconsideration and a new trial on the ground they had not been notified of the hearing. That motion was initially denied by an October 2, 1936 order.
On July 17, 1937, Judge Sotero Rodas reconsidered and set aside the October 2, 1936 order, finding that the Balila claimants had been deprived of property without due process and that the circumstances amounted to the kind of fraud justifying revision of the decree; he ordered that Lot No. 903 be set for hearing. The subsequent course of the proceedings is unclear in the record; World War II intervened and many records were allegedly lost or destroyed.
On August 21, 1953 Mrs. Sengbengco petitioned for reconstitution of the original certificate of title she previously held, alleging the originals had been destroyed during the war. The petition was granted November 17, 1953, and Original Certificate of Title No. 15104 was issued January 2, 1954. On January 16, 1954 appellant — who had acquired the rights and interests of the heirs of Rafael Balila by conveyance dated August 28, 1936 — moved to cancel the reconstituted certificate, asserting it was illegally issued because the 1935 decision had been reconsidered and set aside by the July 17, 1937 order. A trial-court order of February 14, 1954 granted cancellation, but on Mrs. Sengbengco's motion Judge Francisco Arellano set aside that cancellation by order dated May 8, 1954; a motion for reconsideration of the May 8 order was denied on July 21, 1954.
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Did the conveyance of the heirs' rights to appellant on August 28, 1936 deprive the heirs of the legal personality to move for reconsideration on September 8, 1936?
- Is appellant barred by laches from invoking the July 17, 1937 order given her delay in pressing its enforcement?
- May the decree of registration (and the subsequently reconstituted certificate) be set aside where the decision of September 5, 1935 was allegedly obtained by fraud or rendered without notice to parties of record, under Section 38 of Ac...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)