Spouses Yabut Vs Punzalan

Spouses Rodolfo Yabut Lee and Lydia Liscano vs.
Florencio Punzalan
G. R. No. L-50236
August 29, 1980
J. Melencio-Herrera
Facts:
1. That on May 14, 1968, the Petitioner Spouses filed before the CFI of Tarlac an application for registration of
two parcels of land.
a. No oppositions despite due publication – CFI issues an Order of General Default
b. Presented their evidence before Clerk of Court who was duly commissioned to receive the same
c. Clerk of Court submitted his Report to the Court for proper action
a. But due to the transfer of the presiding Judge – the application was unacted upon
2. November 26, 2968, Punzalan filed a “petition for Reopening and/or Review”, claims that:
a. Applicants committed fraud in not disclosing their application
b. He is the owner of a house standing on the lots applied
c. He has usufructuary rights over said properties
d. Petition be admitted
e. Case reopened
f. New trial so that he could have his day in court
3. Applicants objected
a. Denied all allegations
b. Interposed the defense of prescription
c. Contends that the petition filed was not the proper remedy
4. October 6, 1969 CFI Judge de Guzman – denied the reopening of of the case, on the grounds that:
a. “there is nothing to reopen and/or review at the moment”
5. Punzalan filed his Notice of Appeal announcing his intention to appeal to the SC – issues raised were purely
legal
a. A motion to dismiss was filed by the applicants
6. CA certified the case, the issues involved being pure questions of law, that the Lower Court:
a. Committed a mistake in denying petition for reopening and/or for review, considering that until now
no decision adjudicating the parcels of land in question has been rendered
b. Committed a mistake in not holding the respondent can legally file his petition for reopening and/or
review without first lifting as to him the order of General Default
c. Committed a mistake in not holding that respondent has a perfect legal right to file his petition
7. The position taken by the respondent stems from an obvious misinterpretation of Sec 38 of Act 496
a. “any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained
by fraud to file in the Court of Land Registration a petition for review within one year after entry of
the decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired interest
Issue: W/N the Respondent the respondent may file a Petition for Review of registration
Held:
The case was remanded back to the trial court.
A review 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 or registration.
In the case at bar, no judgment has as yet been rendered by the Lower Court, and much less has any decree of
registration has been issued. The fixing of a Petition for Reopening and/or Review by respondent, therefore, is
decidedly premature. Indeed, in the absence of any decision and/or decree, there is nothing to be reviewed or
reopened.
Consider this also, NAGKAMALI DIN YUNG RESPONDENT
But while appellant had definitely committed an error of procedure, it was evident that his objective was to be given a
chance to present evidence to substantiate his allegations of ownership. In fact, he had asked for new trial. The
interests of substantial justice and the speedy determination of the controversy, therefore, should have impelled the
trial Court to lift the Order of General Default in respect of oppositor-appellant, and once lifted, to have allowed
appellant to file an Opposition to the Application. Thereby, appellant could have been afforded the opportunity to
present his evidence challenging applicants' right to registration, and perchance, a decision on the merits shall have
been already rendered by this time. An Order of General Default is interlocutory in character, subject to the control of
the Court, and may be modified or amended as the Court may deem proper at any time prior to the rendition of the
final judgment.

Spouses Yabut Vs Punzalan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Yabut Vs Punzalan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Yabut Vs Punzalan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Rodolfo Yabut Lee and Lydia Liscano vs.

The case was remanded back to the trial court.

Consider this also, NAGKAMALI DIN YUNG RESPONDENT

You might also like