This is a petition for  a writ of certiorari, the petitioner praying that the orders, decrees and certificates  of title issued by the respondent court in regard to lot No.  1442 in cadastral case No. 3  of the Province of Nueva  Ecija be declared null and void.

The lot in question is situated in the town of Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, and embraces an area of 4,453 square meters. It appears from the record that prior to  December 4, 1914, Gregorio Crisostomo, the parish priest of Cabanatuan, was the owner of the entire lot.  On  that date he  executed a deed of sale in favor of the spouses Esteban  del Rosario and Natividad Tiangco for a  portion of the lot, measuring 1,435 square meters.  Subsequently, proceedings in the aforesaid cadastral case No. 3 were instituted and it seems that, by agreement between the   parties,  Father Crisostomo  presented a claim to all of  lot No. 1442  apparently with the understanding that a conveyance to Esteban del Rosario of the portion purchased by him would be subsequently made. On December 29, 1916,  decision was  rendered in  the cadastral  case  adjudicating the lot in  question, to  Father Crisostomo but  no final  decree was entered  until  several years afterwards.

On February  15, 1918, Father  Crisostomo executed his last will and  testament devising all of  his lands  situated in the Province of  Nueva  Ecija  to  the  Government of the Philippine  Islands  for certain benevolent  purposes.  He died shortly afterwards and on July 22,  1918, Esteban del Rosario and his wife Natividad Tiangco filed a motion in the cadastral case asking that the adjudication of lot No. 1442 be reviewed on  the ground that  the lot had  been conveyed to them by Father Crisostomo prior to the institution of the  cadastral proceedings.  The motion was duly set down for hearing and notice thereof given the administrator of the estate of the deceased.  At the hearing the Government was  represented  by the Attorney-General's Office and upon an examination of the deed executed December 4, 1914, the representative of that office withdrew all opposition.  The motion was granted  by order dated November 2, 1918, and in June 1920, a certificate of title for the land was issued in favor of  the conjugal partnership of Esteban del Rosario and Natividad Tiangco.

Distribution of the estate of Father Gregorio Crisostomo was made  by an  order dated  October  25,  1921,  and on December 3, 1923, the Government represented by special attorney Villanueva filed  a petition with the respondent court asking that the order of November 2, 1918, directing the issuance of the final decree  in the  name of Esteban del Rosario and Natividad Tiangco be set aside.   The petition was  denied by an order dated  December  28, 1923,  on the ground that the decision in the  cadastral case as to lot No. 1442 was final and could not then be corrected or amended. No further action seems to have  been taken until the present  petition was filed in June,  1926.

In  this petition the Attorney-General on behalf of the petitioner alleges most of the facts above stated and maintains that the order of November 2, 1918, amounted to an amendment of the decision  of  December  29, 1916,  in the cadastral case, and that the Court of First Instance exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing  such an order long after said decision became final.  The respondents Esteban del Rosario and Natividad Tiangco contend that the land description in the deed of  December 4, 1914, is incorrect and that they as a  matter of fact purchased all of lot No. 1442  from Father Crisostomo; that therefore the order of November 2, 1918, was not erroneous;  that the  Government, through its proper representatives having renounced its opposition to said order,  waived its claim to  any interest in  the property and cannot now assert  that claim;  and that not having appealed from the  order and not having brought the present action  until eight years after the issuance of the said order, it is guilty of laches and is not entitled to equitable relief.

In  our opinion the respondent court did not exceed its jurisdiction in  issuing the  order of November 2,  1918, directing the General Land Registration Office to issue and enter the final  decree in favor of the conjugal partnership of Esteban del Rosario and Natividad Tiangco.  The motion upon  which the order was issued, set forth facts which if true show fraud on the part of the person to whom the land was originally adjudicated, and were sufficient  to justify a review of the decree under section 38 of the Land Registration  Act.  No final decree  had been entered in the case and the motion was therefore presented in time (Rivera vs. Moran,  48  Phil.,  836).  Though the  interested  parties had notice of the motion, no opposition was offered and while the ruling of the court on the motion may  have been erroneous, it was  nevertheless clearly within the jurisdiction of  the court,  and a writ of certiorari to correct that error will therefore  not lie.

The evidence now before us indicates that the respondents Esteban del Rosario and Natividad Tiangco were only entitled to a portion of lot No. 1442 and that in claiming, and taking title to, the entire lot they were guilty of constructive fraud.  If this be a fact, the  remedy would seem to  be  an action to compel the conveyance to the Government" of the portion  of the lot wrongfully held by the said respondents. An action for damages may also lie in  such  cases, but in the present instance that action is probably barred by the statute  of  limitations.  (Section 55, Act No. 496; Macapinlac vs. Gutierrez  Repide, 43 Phil., 770; Roman Catholic Bishop  of  Nueva  Caceres vs. Municipality of Tabaco,  46 Phil., 271.)

The petition for a writ of certiorari  is denied without costs.   So ordered.

Avanceña,  C. J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.