[152.] Crisolo v.

CA (1975)

Topic: Only those fraudulently deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the original registration case
may file petition for review

Facts:
Within a year from the issuance of a decree of registration in a land registration case, respondent-ward,
represented by his guardian, filed a petition for review of the decree under Sec. 38 of Act 496 on the
ground of fraud which allegedly constituted in petitioner’s taking advantage of the insanity of respondent-
ward to secure the execution of a deed of exchange of properties by and between the petitioner and said
respondent-ward, as well as in instituting the land registration proceedings while said ward was confined
at the National Psychopathic Hospital. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that Sec. 38 of Act
496 was not applicable because the respondent had opportunity to oppose the registration proceedings but
abandoned this opposition.

Issue: W/N respondents are entitled to the remedy under Sec. 38 of Act 496.

Held: No.
The Court held that the persons contemplated under Sec. 38 of Act 496, to be entitled to a review of a
decree of registration, are those who were fraudulently deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the
original registration case. Such is not the situation in the case at bar. Respondents were fraudulently
denied their day in court, which the law provides as the sole ground for reopening of the decree of
registration. In fact, they opposed the registration but failed to substantiate the same. Mere allegation of
fraud is not enough. There must be specific, intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right, or
injure him in some manner, that must be alleged and prove.