RIVERA v.

MORAN
G.R. No. L-24568 / March 2, 1926 / Ostrand
(Digest by A. Villafuerte)
FACTS
In a cadastral case, the CFI ordered several lots to be registered in the names of Estanislao Garcia and Rafael Llorente. Later,
Llorente transferred his interest in the lots to Garcia who, in turn, mortgaged the land to the petitioners (Rivera, et al.). The
mortgage was inscribed in the unregistered land register.
Meanwhile, the Attorney-General presented a petition for review under Land Registration Act Section 38, alleging that the
adjudication of the land to Garcia and Llorente was obtained by fraud (fraudulent alterations of the stenographic notes taken in
the cadastral case). This was granted by the CFI, so the earlier case was opened for a new trial.
The petitioners filed a motion in the cadastral case, alleging that they have accepted the mortgage on the strength of the earlier
decision, and that they were holders of the mortgage as innocent third parties and in good faith. Their motion asking the court
to declare itself without jurisdiction was denied.
The mortgagees/petitioners filed this petition alleging that the CFI was without jurisdiction to reopen the cadastral case:
No sufficient notice given re: hearing
Director of Lands alleged fraud on the part of Garcia and Llorente, and having failed to file an appeal from the order
denying the motion, the Director is precluded from availing himself of the remedy of a petition for review
Petition for review premature as no final decree in the case has been issued
If the decision is to be regarded as a decree, they (mortgagees/petitioners) having acquired their interest in the land
subsequent to the decision are innocent parties
ISSUE & HOLDING
WON there is any merit to the petitioners' pleading. NO
RATIO
Procedural issues
Motion and notice of hearing served upon the lawyer for Garcia and Llorente; while he refused to accept service on the
ground that he had nothing further to do with the case, he was still their lawyer, so an offer of service upon him serves
as sufficient compliance
Nonetheless, Garcia and Llorente appeared before the court without questioning its jurisdiction so they impliedly
waived their objections to any defects in the service of notice
Petitioners, not being parties in the cadastral case and not having acquired any interest in the land at the time the
petition for review was filed, were not entitled to notice
Petition for review under LRA Section 38 is different from a motion for a new trial
Substantive issues
Section 38 of the LRA provides that a petition for review of a decree of registration must be filed within one year after entry of
the decree. It is conceded that no such decree has been entered. However, the Court interpreted it to mean that a petition for
review under Section 38 may be filed at any time after the rendition of the court's decision and before the expiration of one
year from the entry of the final decree of registration.
The contention that they are innocent purchasers for value cannot be sustained. They acquired the interest in the land before
the final decree has been entered, so litigation was still pending and it appears that they were aware of that fact. The land was
already registered at that time, so the petitioners could not have acquired interest valid as against third persons if their title had
not been entered in the Torrens register. Section 50 of the LRA provides that the act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey and affect the land. The inscription in the unregistered land register is without prejudice to third parties with a better
right.
PETITION DENIED