8 Morales Vs Paredes

[No. 34428.
December 29, 1930]
BALTAZAR MORALES, petitioner, vs. ISIDRO PAREDES,

Judge of First Instance of Pangasinan, ET AL.,
respondents.
1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; PETITION FOR REVIEW

OF DECISION ON GROUND OF FRAUD.—The proper
remedy in a case where a party has been deprived of his
land or of any estate or interest therein, by reason of
fraud, is to petition the court for a review under section 38
of the Land Registration Act. In the instant case, the
plaintiff's contention that such review cannot be had until
the final decree has been issued is not in accordance with
the view adopted by this court. 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 ground of fraud must be
filed "within one year after 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 urging his
claim of fraud.
2. ID.; ID.; "OBITER DICTUM."—A remark made, or opinion

expressed, by a judge, in his decision upon a cause, "by the
way," that is, incidentally or collaterally and not directly
upon the question before him, or upon a point not
necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or
introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument,
lacks the force of an adjudication and should not be
regarded as such.
ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Petition for

relief under section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Nicolas Belmonte for petitioner.
The respondent Judge in his own behalf.
Turner, Rheberg & Sanchez for respondents P. Gavino,
R. Gavino and Prudencio Gavino.
OSTRAND, J.:
Pedro, Rosendo, and Prudencio Gavino applied for the
registration of a parcel of land situated in the población of
the municipality of San Quintin, Pangasinan, and on
566
566 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Paredes
June 23, 1930, the application was granted and a decision

to that effect rendered. Baltazar Morales now claims to be
the owner of the land, but he was not advised of the
registration proceedings and was not informed thereof until
the early part of the month of September, 1930. He
thereupon filed a motion on September 18 in the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan f or the reconsideration of the
decision of June 23 and as far as the record shows the
motion may still be pending. Without dismissal of the
motion mentioned, the movant brought the present action
praying that the aforesaid decision be set aside and that a
new trial be granted in accordance with section 513 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff has unfortunately mistaken his remedy.
Assuming without deciding that the allegations of fraud in
his complaint are true, the proper remedy is to petition for
a review under section 38 of the Land Registration Act. The
plaintiff's contention that such review cannot be had until
the final decree has been issued is not in accordance with
the view adopted by this court. In the case of Rivera vs.
Moran (48 Phil., 836), the court said:
"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 seem that the petition f
or 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
urging his claim of fraud. We therefore hold that a petition for
review under
567
VOL. 55, JANUARY 16, 1931 567
People vs. Villegas
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."
1
In the case of Plurad vs. Alcaide, G. R. No. 27545, there is
an indication that there can be no review until the final
decree has been issued. This indication is only obiter
dictum and was not voted upon by the court; the
determination of the case rested on other grounds and the
dictum was not taken into consideration by the court as a
whole. A dictum not necessarily involved in the case, lacks
the force of an adjudication and should not ordinarily be
regarded as such.
The plaintiff's view of the extent of actions under section
513 of the Code of Civil Procedure is erroneous. This court
has no jurisdiction to reopen judgments under that section
if other adequate remedies are available, and such
remedies are not lacking in the present case.
The case is therefore dismissed with;the costs against
the plaintiff. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, ViUamor,

Johns, Romualdez, and VillaReal, JJ., concur.
Case dismissed.
______________
© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

8 Morales Vs Paredes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 Morales Vs Paredes

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

8 Morales Vs Paredes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[No. 34428.

December 29, 1930]

BALTAZAR MORALES, petitioner, vs. ISIDRO PAREDES,

1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; PETITION FOR REVIEW

2. ID.; ID.; "OBITER DICTUM."—A remark made, or opinion

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Petition for

566 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

June 23, 1930, the application was granted and a decision

"It is conceded that no decree of registration has been entered and

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, ViUamor,

You might also like