Morales v.

Paredes, 55 Phil 565, December 29, 1930

Ticker Obiter dictum,
Doctrine An o biter dic tum is a n opini on express ed by a cou rt
upon som e qu estion of la w whi ch is n ot nece ssa ry to
the de cisi on of th e cas e b efo r e i t.
Facts  P edro , R o sen do , a n d P ru den ci o Ga vi no a ppli ed fo r
th e regi stra ti o n o f a pa rcel o f la n d . It wa s gra n ted
o n Ju n e 2 3 , 1 93 0 .
 Ba l ta za r Mo ral es n o w cla i ms to be th e o wn er o f th e
l a n d. He th ereu po n fil ed a mo ti o n o n September 1 8
i n th e Co u rt o f Fi rst In sta n ce o f P an ga sin a n fo r th e
reco n si dera ti o n o f th e deci si o n o f Ju n e 23 .
 W i th ou t di smi ssal o f th e mo ti o n men ti o n ed, th e
mo va n t bro u gh t th e presen t a cti o n pra yi n g tha t th e
a fo resa i d deci si o n be set a si de a n d th a t a n ew tri a l
be gra n ted i n a cco rda n ce wi th secti o n 51 3 of th e
C o de o f C i vi l P ro cedu re, bu t t h e pro p er re med y i s to
peti ti o n fo r a revi ew u n der secti o n 3 8 o f th e Lan d
R egi stra ti o n Act
 Th e pl a in ti ff a rgu ed th a t su ch revi ew ca n no t be h a d
u n til th e fin al decree h a s been i ssu ed.

Issue Whether or not the plaintiff can petition a review under 38 of the
Land Registration Act before the final decree is issued
Supreme  In th e ca se o f Ri vera vs. Mo ra n (4 8 P hi l ., 8 36 ), th e
Court co u rt sa i d, “Secti o n 3 8 o f th e Lan d R egi stra ti o n Act
pro vi des th a t a peti ti o n fo r revi ew o f su ch a decree
o n th e gro u n ds o f fra u d mu st be fil ed ` wi th in o n e
yea r a fter en try o f th e d ecre e.” Ho w ev er, “ wh a t i t
mea n t wo u l d ha ve been be tter exp ress ed by s ta ti n g
th a t su ch peti ti on s mu st be presen te d befo r e th e
expi ra ti o n o f on e yea r fro m th e en try o f th e decr ee.
Sta tu tes mu st be gi ve n a rea so n a bl e co n stru cti o n
a n d th ere ca n be n o po ssi bl e rea so n fo r requ i ri n g
th e co mpl a i ni n g pa rty to wa i t u n ti l th e fi na l decree
i s en tered b efo re u rgi n g h i s cla i m o f fra u d.”
 In th e ca se o f Pl u ra d vs. Al cai de, G. R . No . 2 7 5 45 ,
th ere i s a n in di ca ti o n tha t th ere ca n be n o revi ew
u n til th e fin al decree h a s been i ssu ed. Th i s
i n di ca ti o n i s on l y o bi ter di ctu m an d wa s n o t vo ted
u po n by th e co u rt; th e determi n a ti o n o f th e ca se
reste d o n o th er gro u n ds a n d th e di ctu m wa s n o t
ta ken i n to con si dera ti o n by th e co u rt a s a wh ol e. A
di ctu m n o t n ecessa ri l y i n vo l ved i n th e ca se, l a cks
th e fo rce o f a n a dj u di ca ti o n a n d sho ul d n o t
o rdi n a ril y be rega rde d a s su ch .
Decision “Th e pl a i n ti ff's vi ew o f th e exten t o f a cti o n s u n der secti o n
5 1 3 o f th e C o de o f Ci vil P ro cedu re i s erro n eo u s. Th i s co u rt
h a s n o j u ri sdi cti o n to reo pen j u dgmen ts u n der th a t
secti o n i f o th er a dequ a te reme di es a re a va i l a bl e, an d su ch
reme di es a re n o t l a cki n g i n th e presen t ca se.

Th e ca se i s th erefo re di smi ssed wi th th e co sts a ga i n st th e

pl a in ti ff. So o rdered.”