FACTS:
Maguesun Corporation filed an Application
for Registration of two parcels of unregistered land located in
Tagaytay. In support of its application for registration they
presented a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 10, 1990, executed by Zenaida Melliza as vendor who bought the
property from Trinidad deLeon vda. de Roxas two
and a half months earlier, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated March 26,1990 and an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication dated
March 24, 1990.Notices of the initial hearing were sent by the
Land Registration Authority to Hilario Luna, Jose Gil and Leon Luna while
Trinidad de Leon vda. de Roxas was not notified because she was not named
as an adjoining owner, occupant or adverse claimant. Publication was made in
the Official Gazette and the Record
Newsweekly.
After an Order of general default was issued, the trial court
proceeded to hear the land registration case. On October 4, 1990, LRA
reported that the subject parcels of land had previously been applied
for registration at the CFI of Cavite by Manuel A. Roxas and Trinidad de
Leon but no decision has beenmade.
February 13, 1991 the RTC granted Maguesun Corporation's application for registration.Consequently
RTC issued the Order for Issuance of the Decree on March 14, 1991, after it
ordered the application of Manuel A. Roxas
and Trinidad de Leon dismissed. It
was only when the caretaker of the property was being asked to vacate
the land that petitioner Trinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas learned of its
sale and the registration of the lots in Maguesun Corporation's name. Hence,
she filed a petition for review before the RTC to set aside the decree of registration on the ground
that Maguesun Corporation committed
actual fraud, alleging that her signature was forged
in both the Deed of Sale and the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication; that Maguesun
Corporation intentionally omitted her name as an adverse claimant, occupant or
adjoining owner in the application for registration submitted to the LRA, such
that the latter could not send her a Notice of Initial Hearing RTC that Maguesun Corporation did not commit
actual fraud and dismissed the petition for review of decree of
registration April 15, 1992. CA affirmed the findings of RTC, ruling that
Roxas’ failed to and demonstrate that there was actual or extrinsic
fraud, not merely constructive or intrinsic fraud, a prerequisite for purposes
of annuling a judgment or reviewing a decree of registration. Hence this
petition.
ISSUE:
Was there actual fraud on the part of
Maguesun Corporation to warrant the reopening and the setting aside of the registration decree?
HELD:
The Court here finds that respondent
Maguesun Corporation committed actual fraud in obtaining the decree of registration sought to be reviewed by Roxas.
Actual Fraud
Fraud is of
two kinds: actual or constructive.Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.Constructive fraud is construed as a
fraud because of its detrimental effect upon public interests and public or private confidence, even
though the act is not done or committed with an actual design to commit
positive fraud or injury upon other persons. Fraud may also be either extrinsic
or intrinsic.
Fraud is regarded as intrinsic where the fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in
the original action, or where the acts constituting the fraud were or could have been litigated therein, and
is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or
from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates
upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which
it is procured, so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy.
Extrinsic fraud is also actual fraud, but collateral to
the transaction sued upon. The distinctions are significant because only actual fraud or
extrinsic fraud has been accepted asgrounds for a judgment to be annulled or,
as in this case, a decree of registration reopened and reviewed. The "fraud"
contemplated by the law in this case (Section 32, P.D. No 1529) is actual and
extrinsic, which includes an intentional omission of fact required
by law.
Intentional Omission of Name
In the corporation's application for registration filed with the
RTC only the following names appeared: Hilario Luna, Jose Gil, Leon Luna,
Provincial Road. The court found that the some words are typed inwith a
different typewriter, with the first five letters of the
word "provincial" typed over correction fluid.However, Maguesun
Corporation, annexed a differently-worded application
for the petition to
reviewthe application of the Roxas’ where in instead of PROVINCIAL ROAD, the name ROXAS
appeared.The
discrepancy which is unexplained appears intentional. It is reasonable to assume that the reason is to
mislead the court into thinking that "Roxas" wasplaced in the original application as an adjoining owner,
encumbrancer, occupant or claimant, thesame application which formed the basis
for the LRA in sending out notices of initial hearing. Section15 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529 also requires the applicant for registration to
state the full namesand addresses of all occupants of the land and those of
adjoining owners, if known and if not known,the
extent of the search made to find them. Maguesun Corporation failed to comply with thisrequirement.
Possession in OCENO
The truth is that the Roxas family had been in possession of
the property uninterruptedly through their caretaker, Jose Ramirez.
Maguesun Corporation also that the subject land was unoccupied when intruth and
in fact, the Roxas family caretaker resided in the subject property.
Maguesun Corporation islikewise charged with the knowledge of such possession
and occupancy, for its President, who signedthe Deed of Sale over the property, knew fully well that her grandaunt
Trinidad de Leon vda. de Roxasowned the property. It is reasonable to
expect her as a buyer to have inspected the property prior to the sale such
that the ascertainment of the current possessors or occupants could have been
made facilely. Maguesun Corporation
intentional concealment and representation of Roxas’ interest in the subject lots as possessor, occupant and claimant constitutes actual
fraud justifying the reopening and
review of the decree of registration.
Concealment of
the Existence of Trinidad Roxas
Mention
of the late President's name as well as that of Trinidad was made principally
in the
FormalOffer of Exhibits for Maguesun Corporations tax declarations and as predecessor-in-interest.However, this is not sufficient compliance with what the law
requires to be stated in the application for registration. Disclosure
of petitioner's adverse interest, occupation and possession should be made at the appropriate time, ie. at the time of the application for registration, otherwise,
the persons concerned will not be sent notices of the initial
hearing and will, therefore, miss the opportunity to present their opposition or claims.
Publication of Notice of Initial
Hearing
While publication of the notice in the Official Gazette is
sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court, publication in a newspaper of
general circulation remains an indispensable procedural requirement. Couched in
mandatory terms, it is a component of procedural due process and aimed at
giving "as wide publicity as possible" so that all persons having an
adverse interest in the land subject of the registration proceedings may be
notified thereof. Although jurisdiction of the court is not affected, the fact
that publication was not made in a newspaper of general circulation is material
and relevant in assessing the applicant's right or title to the land.
Forgery and
Discrepancies
A close scrutiny of the evidence on record leads the Court to the
irresistible conclusion that forgerywas indeed attendant in the case at bar. Although there is no proof of respondent MaguesunCorporation's direct participation in the execution and preparation
of the forged instruments, there aresufficient indicia which proves that
Maguesun Corporation is not
the "innocent purchaser for
value" who merits the protection of
the law. The questioned signatures taken from the Deed of Sale and
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication are starkly different
from the sample signatures in several documents executed by Trinidad. The
questionedsignatures are smooth and rounded and have none of the jagged
and shaky character of petitioner'ssignatures
characteristic of the penmanship of elderly persons.The fact that
petitioner was not the sole heir was known to the general public, as
well as the demise of the late President on April 15, 1946 while delivering a speech at Clark Field, Pampanga. Theaforementioned irregularities are too glaring to have been ignored. If
Tinidad did in fact execute said Affidavit, there is no reason why she should
state facts other than the unadulterated truth concerning herself and her family. WHEREFORE, the
instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
No comments:
Post a Comment