Halog, Shien

Malicdem, Ralph
Singson, Jean Ben
1.)
a.) PETITION TO REVIEW OR REOPEN A DECREE OF REGISTRATION
The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence,
minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any
proceeding in any court for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of any
person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any
estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual
fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of
the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of
such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court
where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein,
whose rights may be prejudiced.
b.) ACTION FOR DAMAGES
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such
decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages
against the applicant or any other persons responsible for the fraud.
c.) ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE
An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner
of land whichc has been wrongfully registered in the name of another for the prupose of
compelling the later to transfer or reconvey the land. Such action must be file within one
year from the date of such decree.
d.) Appeal from judgment
The judgment and orders of the court hearing the land registration case are appealable
to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the same manner as in ordinary
actions. He may avail himself of the remedy of new trial, reconsideration, relief from
judgment or appeal under the Rules of Court.
The appellant shall file a notice of the appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days
after notice of the judgment or final order. In case of ordinary appeal, the appeal shall be
taken within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from.
Relief from Judgment on the other hand should be filed within 60 days after the
petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other proceedings to be set aside, and
not more than six months after such judgment was takn.

e.) Claim against the Assurance Fund

f.) Reversion (under CA 141)
g.) Cancellation of title
h.) Annulment of Judgment
i.) Criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal Code

2.)
No the allegation does not constitute extrinsic fraud. The ground relied upon to
annul the 1958 decision based on a compromise agreement being intrinsic and not
extrinsic fraud, there is unanimity in the view entertained by the Court that petitioners'
stand must be sustained.
Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in litigation
committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party is prevented from
fully exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his
opponent, such as by keeping him away from court, by giving him a false promise of a
compromise, or where the defendant never had the knowledge of the suit, being kept in
ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff, or where an attorney fraudulently or without
authority connives at his defeat.

3.
The petition for a review under section 38 is a remedy separate and distinct from
a motion for a new trial under section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in our
opinion the right to the remedy is not affected by the denial of such a motion irrespective
of the grounds upon which it may have been presented.
4.
It is conceded that no decree of registration has been entered and section 38 of
the Land Registration Act provides that a petition for review of such a decree on the
grounds of fraud must be filed "within one year after entry of the decree." Giving this
provision a literal interpretation it may at first blush seen that the petition for review
cannot be presented until the final decree has been entered. But on further reflection it
is obvious that such could not have been the intention of the Legislature and that what it
meant would have been better expressed by stating that such petitions must be
presented before the expiration of one year from the entry of the decree. Statutes must
be given a reasonable construction and there can be no possible reason for requiring
the complaining party to wait until the final decree is entered before arguing his claim for
fraud. We therefore hold that a petition for review under section 38, supra, 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.
5.
The contention that the petitioners must be regarded as innocent purchasers for
value within the meaning of the section 38 cannot be sustained. They acquired their
interest in the land before any final decree had been entered; the litigation was therefore
in effect still pending and to appear that they were aware of the fact. In these
circumstances they can hardly be considered innocent purchasers in good faith.

6.
Only actual or extrinsic fraud would justify the review of a decree of registration.
The right of a person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by
adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud is recognized by law as a
valid and legal basis for reopening and revising a decree of registration.
To avail a petition for review, the following requisites must be satisfied:
a. The petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land;
b. He must show actual fraud in the procurement of the decree of registration;
c. The petition must be file within one year from the issuance of the decree by the
Land Registration Authority; and
d. The property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser.

The action to annul a judgment, upon the ground of fraud, would be unavailing
unless the fraud be extrinsic or collateral and the facts upon which it is based have not
been controverted or resolved in the case where the judgment sought to be annulled
was rendered. Extrinsic or collateral fraud, as distinguished from intrinsic fraud,
connotes any fraudulent scheme executed by a prevailing litigant "outside the trial of a
case against the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said
defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case."
But intrinsic fraud takes the form of "acts of a party in a litigation during the trial, such as
the use of forged instruments or perjured testimony, which did not affect the
presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case
(Garingan v. Garingan, GR No. 144095, 12 April 2005).
7.
a. ) That the applicant surreptitiously procured its survey of the land in his own name
does not constitute extrinsic fraud.

b. That at the trial, the applicant and his successor-in-interest, submitted a fabricated
new tax declaration showing a greater area and improvement than that shown in the
original tax declaration does not constitute extrinsic fraud.
c. Allegation that neither the applicant nor his alleged successor-in-interest has ever
been in actual possession of the property in question since time immemorial does not
constitute extrinsic fraud.
d. That the substituted applicants represented themselves as the true heirs of the
applicant when in fact they are not does not constitute extrinsic fraud.
e. That at the trial, the applicant represented forged document, or a false and perjured
testimony does not constitute extrinsic fraud. It did not affect the presentation of the
case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case."
All these go into the merits of the case.
Extrinsic or collateral fraud, as distinguished from intrinsic fraud, connotes any
fraudulent scheme executed by a prevailing litigant "outside the trial of a case against
the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party is
prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case.
The above-mentioned fraudulent schemes of the prevailing litigant do not prevent
a party from having his day in court or from presenting his case. Relief on the ground of
fraud will not be granted where the alleged fraud goes into the merits of the case, is
intrinsic and not collateral, and has been controverted and decided.

8-10.
A. False
B. False
C. False
D. True
E. False
F. False
G. False
H. False
I. True
J. True