Divina v.

CA

A parcel of land in Sorsogon was originally owned by Antonio. Berosa sold the
property to Teotimo, his wife. They later sold it to Gamos. Gamos likewise acquired
the property adjacent to it from Arimado. Gamos successfully consolidated both
properties and secured a single tax declaration for both. Without Gamoss
knowledge, Teotimo sold a portion of the property, previously sold to the former, to
Divina. Said sale was registered. Subsequent to the registration of the said sale,
Gamos sold the consolidated property to Gajo-Sy. Gajo-Sy applied for registration
which Divina opposed pending the issuance of a decree thereof. Divina contends
that he owns a portion of the said property by virtue of a deed of sale. Divina
imputes fraud on Gajo-Sy. Gajo-SY contends that the registration has been final and
denies fraud.

The trial court ruled that revoked Gajo-SYs registration and declared Divina an
owner of a portion of the said property. The CA reversed the said decision absent
finding of fraud.

Issue:

whether or not, there was deliberate misrepresentation constituting actual fraud on

private respondents part when she failed to give or post notice to petitioner of her
application for registration of the contested land, such that it was error for the trial
court to declare private respondent owner of the disputed land.

Held:

Section 15 of P.D. 1529 is explicit in requiring that in the application for registration
of land titles, the application shall also state the full names and addresses of all
occupants of the land and those of the adjoining owners if known, and if not known,
it shall state the extent of the search made to find them. Mere statement of the lack
of knowledge of the names of the occupants and adjoining owners is not sufficient
but what search has been made to find them is necessary. In this case, Gajo-SY
should have included the adjoining owners thereon or any of the occupants thereto.
Its impossible to contend that she lacks knowledge of their indentities since their
names appear in the survey plan. To not include their names in her petition deprives
them of their day in court hence, fraud.