Broce v. Apurado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eusebia Broce et al. procured a registered title under Act No. 496 to a parcel of land. Catalino Broce appealed the decision. Subsequently, Damaso Apurado et al. filed a petition for the opening of the decree of registration, alleging fraud in its procurement. This was their first opposition to the registration. Procedural History: The Court of Land Registration initially ordered the inscription of the land in the name of Eusebia Broce et al. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on March 16, 1911. Damaso Apurado et al. filed their petition for review on April 24, 1911. The Petition: Damaso Apurado et al. claimed that Carlos Apurado, the original owner and ascendant to both parties, never sold the land to the father of Eusebia Broce et al. They asserted a right to participate in the division of the land as heirs. The alleged fraud was based on an agreement where Damaso Apurado et al. would not interfere with the registration on the condition that Eusebia Broce et al. would register the land for the benefit of all heirs.
Issue(s)
Whether the one-year period for filing a petition for review of a decree of registration based on fraud commences from the decision of the Court of Land Registration or from the entry of the decree after an appeal to the Supreme Court. Whether the appellants presented sufficient evidence of fraud in the procurement of the decree of registration. Whether the alleged agreement to register the land jointly was proven.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court denying the petition for review. The petition was filed within the one-year period allowed by law, but the appellants failed to prove fraud in the procurement of the decree of registration. The Court found that Carlos Apurado had indeed sold the land to Gregorio Broce, the father of the registered owners, and that the appellants' claim of joint ownership was not substantiated. Their prolonged silence during the registration proceedings also indicated acquiescence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the commencement of the one-year period for petition for review: The Court clarified that the one-year period under Section 38 of Act No. 496 for attacking a decree of registration on the ground of fraud dates from the entry of the decree. The decree cannot be entered until the judgment becomes final. An appeal from the Court of Land Registration prevents the judgment from becoming final until affirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the year for filing a petition for review runs from the date the Supreme Court's final judgment is returned to the Court of Land Registration, allowing for the entry of the decree. In this case, the petition was filed less than twenty days after the Supreme Court's decision was entered, thus it was timely. On the proof of fraud: The Court held that to obtain the benefits of Section 38, the applicant must have an estate or interest in the land and must show fraud in the procurement of the decree. A mere claim of ownership is insufficient. The appellants' claim of joint ownership through inheritance was contradicted by Exhibit 5, a notarial document evidencing the sale of the land by Carlos Apurado to Gregorio Broce in 1886. The Court found this document to be valid, even if it lacked the formalities of a notarial document, as it was effective as a private document binding between the parties and their privies. On the alleged agreement for joint registration: The Court found no adequate testimony to support the claim that the registered owners had promised to register the land as jointly owned. The appellants' silence for nearly five years during the registration proceedings, despite knowing that the Broce children were seeking to register the land in their names, was deemed incompatible with an agreement for joint ownership. This acquiescence, carried out with publicity and for a considerable time, indicated their acceptance of the registration in the names of the Broce children.
Main Doctrine
The one-year period for filing a petition for review of a decree of registration based on fraud commences from the entry of the decree, which cannot be entered until the judgment becomes final. An appeal from the Court of Land Registration prevents the judgment from becoming final until affirmed by the Supreme Court, and the decree is entered only after the Supreme Court's final judgment is returned to the lower court.