Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What are the actions that may be taken by the court after hearing
the evidence presented by the parties in registration proceedings?
1. New trial
A new trial is similar to mortion for reconsideration and must be filed
within fifteen days from receipt of of judgment. The court will act on the
motion where the case has not passed to the appellate court.
Grounds:
1. Fraud. Accident, mistake, excusable negligence which ordinary
prudence could have guarded against and by reason of which
such aggrieved party has probably been impaired of his rights.
2. newly discovered evidence which could not, with the exercise of
reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial
and which if presented would probably alter the result;
3. evidence was insufficient to justify the decision, or the decision is
against the law.
When the court acts upon a new trial, the court may:
1. grant new trial upon such terms as may be just, or
2. deny the motion
If the court grants a new trial, the original judgment shall be vacated
and the action shall stand for trial. Recorded evidence shall be used so far
as material and competent to establish the issues without retaking of the
same
2. Appeal
Appeal may be take by filing notice of appeal with the court that
rendered judgment within 15 days from receipt of judgment by counsel of
aggrieved party. With respect to the government, which is invariably an
oppositor in ordinary registration proceedings, the notice of judgment that
binds it is the one sent to and received by the Solicitor General, not that of
the fiscal. Thus it is from that date of notice to the solgen that that the 15-
day period to appeal should be reckoned.
The case of Fausta Francisco vs. CA, GR No. L-35787, April 11, 1980
clearly illustrates actual or extrinsic fraud. In this case, It was clearly
established that petitioner Fausta Francisco, as adjacent owner of the land
in question was not notified of the alleged survey conducted over the land.
Respondents did not state the true adjoining owners with the deliberate
intention of preventing notices of their application for registration to be sent
to petitioner, Fausta Francisco and in that way prevent petitioner from
appearing in the land registration case and file an opposition to their
application. Francisco was denied her opportunity to be heard and the
proper remedy was review of the decree.
What are the other grounds for justifying review of the decree?
No, because the only ground to avail of the remedy of review is acutal
or extrinsic fraud. The available remedy in case of mistake is
reconveyance or/and damages.
If the period of one year from the issuance of the decree has lapsed,
how can the rightful owner recover his land?
4. Relief from Judgment
5. Reconveyance
Does the one year period from the opening of the decree or
review of judgment apply to action for reconveyance?
No, an action for reconveyance or damages, instituted after the
expiration of one year has not prescribed because it is not one
for the re-opening of the decree. The law affords various remedies to
persons who have been deprived of land by virtue of the operation of the
Torren’s system.
6. Recovery of damages