Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 475 views

    Rivera v. Moran

    Uploaded by

    temporiari
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' claim that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to reopen a cadastral case. While notice was served only to the opposing counsel, the opposing parties still appeared in court without objection. As non-parties who acquired interest before a final decree, the petitioners were not entitled to notice. The Court also found that a petition for review can be filed after a decision under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act to allow for review prior to a final decree's entry. Finally, the petitioners could not claim innocent purchaser status given the pending litigation and that registration in the unregistered land register did not convey valid title against third parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rivera v. Moran

    Uploaded by

    temporiari
    475 views1 page
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' claim that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to reopen a cadastral case. While notice was served only to the opposing counsel, the opposing parties still appeared in court without objection. As non-parties who acquired interest before a final decree, the petitioners were not entitled to notice. The Court also found that a petition for review can be filed after a decision under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act to allow for review prior to a final decree's entry. Finally, the petitioners could not claim innocent purchaser status given the pending litigation and that registration in the unregistered land register did not convey valid title against third parties.

    Original Description:

    LTD Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' claim that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to reopen a cadastral case. While notice was served only to the opposing counsel, the opposing parties still appeared in court without objection. As non-parties who acquired interest before a final decree, the petitioners were not entitled to notice. The Court also found that a petition for review can be filed after a decision under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act to allow for review prior to a final decree's entry. Finally, the petitioners could not claim innocent purchaser status given the pending litigation and that registration in the unregistered land register did not convey valid title against third parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    475 views1 page

    Rivera v. Moran

    Uploaded by

    temporiari
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' claim that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to reopen a cadastral case. While notice was served only to the opposing counsel, the opposing parties still appeared in court without objection. As non-parties who acquired interest before a final decree, the petitioners were not entitled to notice. The Court also found that a petition for review can be filed after a decision under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act to allow for review prior to a final decree's entry. Finally, the petitioners could not claim innocent purchaser status given the pending litigation and that registration in the unregistered land register did not convey valid title against third parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    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

    You might also like