This is an  appeal taken by Gabriel  Tejedor and others from the order of the Court of  First Instance of Manila, dated May 22, 1930, in cadastral case No. 63, G. L. R. O. record No. 318, lot No.  2, block 379, the dispositive  part of which reads as follows:

"Wherefore, said lot 2 of block 379 of cadastral case No. 318 is hereby adjudged and decreed to the petitioners Monserrat Palet, Dominga Palet, and  Alvaro Oliver y Palet, the last-named as successor to Rosa Yedra.

"When this order becomes final in accordance with law, the Chief of  the General Land Registration Office  shall issue  the proper decree."

In support of their appeal the appellants assign the following alleged errors as committed by the court below  in said order:

1. The lower court erred in holding that the petitioners have  set forth a sufficient  allegation of fraud.
   
2. The lower  court erred in holding without any evidence that the petitioners have proved the fraud imputed to the respondents.
   
3. The  lower court erred in  ordering the review  of the decree of registration  corresponding  to lot 2 of block 379 of the Manila cadastral survey.
   
4. The lower court erred in holding  that said lot belongs  to the petitioners and not to  the respondents, by virtue of the instrument  of  partition, Exhibit 1,  of the agreed statement of facts.
   
5. The lower court erred in  cancelling the respondents' title to said lot, and in awarding the lot to the petitioners.
   
6. The lower court erred in denying  the  motion for a new trial filed by the respondents."

The relevant facts necessary to decide the questions raised by this appeal are the following:

On  August 21, 1929, the respondents Gabriel Tejedor and others filed a motion with the Court  of First Instance of Manila in connection with cadastral case No. 63 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, G. L.  R. O. record No. 318, praying, for the reasons given,  that the court issue an  order requiring the Chief of the General Land Registration Office to issue  a decree with reference to lots Nos. 1 and 2 of block No. 379, G. L. R. O. record No. 318,  in the City of Manila, in favor of Gabriel, Beatriz, Nuria, and Jorge Tejedor y Palet, for four equal parts  pro  indiviso, both lots subject to the life usufruct of Gabriel  Tejedor.

After a hearing on said motion wherein no opposition was presented, the Court of First Instance  of Manila, presided over by Judge Pedro Tuason, granted it by  an order dated September 7, 1929.

On December 5, 1929,  Monserrat Palet and others filed a motion praying that the order requiring  the issuance of a decree given on September 7, 1929, be revised,  and that the decree of adjudication  dated October 8,  1929,  be declared  ineffective, and that the original  title  of ownership No. 7171 issued by the registrar of deeds of Manila in favor of Gabriel, Beatriz, Nuria, and Jorge Tejedor, subject to the right of usufruct in favor of Gabriel Tejedor y Carbo with respect to lot No. 2 of block 379 of the cadastral plan of the City of Manila, be declared null and  void, because it was obtained through fraud.

After hearing on this  motion for  review,  the  Court of First Instance of Manila, over the opposition of the respondents,  granted the same  by an order dated February 3, 1930, providing:

"Wherefore, petition granted and the decree and certificate  of  title issued with regard to  lot 2, block 379,  in favor  of the respondents are  hereby set  aside, and  the registrar of deeds of the City of Manila shall cancel said certificate of title covering said lot.   The  motion filed  by the respondents asking for the registration of said lot 2, block 379, in their name  shall  again be set  for hearing.

"When this order becomes final by law, the registrar of deeds  of the  City of  Manila shall proceed in accordance therewith."

Exception  was  taken  to  this order by the respondents, who filed a motion for new trial on  February 12, 1930.

Before this motion for a new trial had been passed upon, the respondents withdrew it and agreed with the petitioners to submit the case to the court for decision upon the following agreed statement of facts;

"Come now the  parties in  the above-entitled  action, through their undersigned counsel, and  do hereby submit the following

"AGREED STATEMENT OF PACTS

1. That Agustin Palet y Roca,  married to Francisca Palet de Yedra,  owned by right of purchase*two (2) adjoining parcels of land: One on A. Mabini  (formerly Nueva) Street, and the other at the corner of this street and Herran, in the District of Malate, City  of Manila, whereon are two buildings of strong material, one on A.  Mabini (formerly Nueva) originally  numbered  26, later 73, then 216, and lastly  678;  and the  other at the corner of A.  Mabini (formerly Nueva)  and Herran, numbered  75 at first, later on 228, and at present No. 694.
   
2. That lot No.  678 comes  from Roman Martinez Andueza, and lot No.  694 from Francisco de Paula Ossorio y Cembrano, as  shown by Exhibits A and B, with regard to the first lot, or No. 678; and by Exhibit C with respect to lot No. 694.  The  former  lot has an area of 1,410.18, and  the latter 738.16 square  meters.
   
3. That for the purpose of widening  Nueva (now A. Mabini)  and Herran Streets,  on  November 29, 1905, a strip of 186.10 square meters was taken from the first mentioned lot, and 164 square meters from the second, as shown by Exhibit D.
   
4. That the  building  on the lot at  the corner of  A. Mabini  (formerly  Nueva) and Herran  occupies 256.37 square meters, according to Exhibits E and I, and the lot, 738.16 square meters  as stated above.
   
5. That when the  cadastral plan  of case No. 63, G. L. R. O. record No. 378 of Manila was drawn, the lot at the corner of A. Mabini  (formerly Nueva) and Herran was marked lot No. 1 of block No. 379; and the lot on A. Mabini (formerly Nueva), lot No. 2 of block No. 379.  (Ex- hibit F.)
   
6. That according to said cadastral plan  (Exhibit F), lot No. 1 of block No. 379 contains an area of 562.20 square meters, bounded on the N. by lots 2  and 3 of block 379; on the E. by lot 3 of block 379; on the S. by Herran Street, and on the W. by A. Mabini Street; and lot No. 2 of block 379 contains an area of 1,347.20 square meters, bounded on the N. by lots 4 and 5 of block 379; on the E. by lot 3 of block 379; on the S. by lot 1 of block 379, and on the W.  by A. Mabini Street.
   
7. That by  inheritance these lots passed  to  Rosa de Yedra and to Rosa, Monserrat, and  Dominga, surnamed Palet y Palet;  and they claimed them in cadastral case No. 63, G. L. R. O.  record No. 318 of Manila, receiving them by judicial decree dated July 27, 1923.
   
8. That after the death of Rosa de Yedra and Rosa Palet y Palet, an agreement was entered into by Jose Oliver y Bauza, as attorney-in-fact for Monserrat Palet, Dominga Palet and others, on the one hand, and Gabriel Tejedor y Carbo in his own behalf and as the legal representative of his children by the deceased Rosa Palet y Palet on the other; and notice of this agreement was given to Messrs. Fernandez Hermanos, by both Jose Oliver y Bauza and Gabriel Tejedor y Carbo, Fernandez  Hermanos who rep- resented the interests of Jose Oliver y Bauza  and Gabriel Tejedor y Carbo in these Islands.  (Exhibits G and H.)
   
9. That later on, February 6,  1926,  to be exact, an agreement was reached and  Exhibit  I was executed.
   
10. That this agreement,  Exhibit I, was forwarded to Messrs. Fernandez Hermanos, who were, as stated, the representatives  in these Islands of both the petitioners and the respondents, continuing to act in that capacity until the month of April,  1928.
    
11. That in or about the month of May, 1928, Messrs. Fernandez Hermanos delivered said agreement, Exhibit I, to Mr. David Saborit y Viladiu, who had  been appointed attorney-in-fact by the respondents for these Islands, and he was also placed in possession of the aforesaid house No. 694 on A. Mabini Street, for Messrs. Fernandez Hermanos informed said Mr. Saborit that that was the only property belonging to the respondents.
    
12. That on  March  31, 1928, Messrs. Fernandez Hermanos sent said Mr. Saborit, as attorney-in-fact of the respondents, a statement of the current account of said lot No.  694 A. Mabini  Street, for the period from January 1, 1928 to March of the same year.   (Exhibit J.)
    
13. That making use of the  aforesaid agreement (Exhibit I), the respondents  in a  motion dated  August 21, 1929, prayed that lots  Nos.  1 and 2 of block  No. 379 of the cadastral plan of the  City of Manila, be  adjudicated to them.  (Proceeding No. 63, G. L. R. O. record No. 318.)
    
14. That the respondents neither gave notice nor served a  copy of their  motion of  August 21, 1929  on  the petitioners; although the court notified Messrs. Fernandez Hermanos, who were the representatives of the petitioners, of the hearing on said motion as appears  from folio 2207 (reverse) of  this record.
    
15. That when said notice of the hearing  was  given, Mr. Jose Oliver y Bauza was already dead, his death having occurred in Spain on May 1, J.928, but Messrs. Fernandez Hermanos were  at that time, and still are, the representatives of the petitioners in the Philippine Islands.
    
16. That the court granted the respondents' motion of August 21,  1929, adjudicating  to them by decree dated October 8,  1929,  said lots Nos. 1 and 2 of block No. 379, and  the  original  certificate No. 7171 was issued to them by the registrar of deeds of Manila.
    
17. That Mr,  Saborit learned  only  after the issuance of said original title No.  7171, that is,  in or about the month of November, 1929, that lot No. 2 of block 379 had been  adjudicated to his principals, and at once demanded that Fernandez Hermanos deliver to him said lot including the house thereon at 678 A.  Mabini Street, and this demand gave  rise to the motion for review filed by the petitioners on December 5, 1929.

"CONTENTION
"The parties expressly agree that there is no question as to the ownership of lot No. 1 of block No. 379 and the house No. 694 on said lot, which belong to the respondents.

"The petitioners  contend that by virtue of Exhibit I, the lot adjudicated to the respondents  is the one which Agustin Palet y Roca purchased of Francisco Paula Ossorio y Cembrano, thru a deed dated May 1,  1926, or that described in Exhibit C, and that this lot is  that known as lot No. 1 of  block No. 379 of the plan Exhibit F.

"The respondents, on  the other hand, contend that by virtue of said Exhibit I, they acquired  said lot No.  2 of block No. 379, which  belongs to them  exclusively, being a piece of real estate conveyed to them  by means of said document.

"The parties agree to submit the case on the present stipulation and  with  the attached exhibits, with  the  right to file a  memorandum  at the same time  within the period of five days from the date hereof.

"Manila, P. I, 13th of May, 1930."

The pertinent portion of the deed of partition and adjudication  mentioned  as Exhibit I in  the  agreed  statement of facts  is of the following tenor:

"EXECUTION

"In full and complete payment  of his rights in the inheritance of Agustin Palet y Roca  and Da. Francisca Palet de Yedra, the herein deponent Jose Oliver  y Bauza, does hereby adjudicate to Gabriel  Tejedor y  Palet in undivided fourths the naked ownership of the following real estate:

"A house of two stories built of strong materials with a galvanized  iron roof,  with  a total area of 994.53  square meters, of which the house and its appurtenances  occupy 256.37 square meters;  said house is situate  in  the City of Manila (Philippine Islands) at No. 694 A. Mabini Street, and  comprises lot 1  of block No. 379 of  cadastral proceeding No, 318 of  said City of Manila, bounded on the north by lots Nos.  2  and 3  of said block; on the east by lot No. 3 thereof; on  the south by Herran Street; and on the west by A. Mabini; and two of said block, bounded on the north by lots 4 and 5 thereof; on the east by lot 3; and on the south by lot 1; and  on  the west by A. Mabini Street.

"The house was purchased by  D. Agustin Palet y Roca from Don Francisco  de  Paula Ossorio y Cembrano through the deed of May 1, 1896 executed before notary  public D. Calixto Reyes  of  Manila,  in  substitution of his partner D. Abraham Garcia; and the deponents agree to evaluate it at one hundred  eighteen thousand, one hundred twenty- four pesetas and sixty-two centavos.

"Said property  is  recorded in  the registry of deeds of Manila on folio four  (reverse), volume three of the Ayuntamiento of  Manila, South Registry, Section of  Malate No. 23, third inscription.

"By virtue of the foregoing, the undersigned,  acting as aforesaid, does hereby  divest  himself and those  whom he represents, of all joint  ownership of said property, transmitting it  in its entirety to the  assignee, in the capacity mentioned  heretofore, whom he empowers to take posses- sion thereof, binding himself and his agents  to warrant them  according  to law.

"D.  Gabriel Tejedor, in his capacity above set forth, does hereby accept the adjudication, declaring himself and all his children and those whom he represents, fully paid and satisfied in the inheritance of D. Agustin Palet y Roca and Da. Francisca Palet de Yedra, ceding and transferring in favor  of his coheirs, this coownership  of the remainder of the estate  of  said inheritance, promising that neither he nor his children shall henceforth claim anything thereon."

If the house adjudicated  to the  respondents Gabriel Tejedor and others in the deed of partition and adjudication, Exhibit  I,  is  the  one purchased  by  Agustin  Palet  y Roca   from Francisco de  Paula  Ossorio y  Cembrano as evidenced by the  deed  executed  on May 1, 1896, and if, according to the agreed statement of facts, said  house is the one numbered 694 which, in the  cadastral survey was numbered 1 of block 379, the respondents are only entitled to this lot by virtue of said deed of partition and adjudication, excluding lot No. 2 of said cadastral survey,  which comprises the property  numbered 678 and derived from Roman Martinez y Andueza,  not adjudicated  to  them by said deed.

When, therefore, the respondents asked for the adjudi- cation to them of lot No. 2, together with lot No. 1 of cadastral case No. 63, G. L. R. O. record No. 318, knowing that they were only entitled to said lot No. 1, this being the only property adjudicated to them  by the  deed of partition and adjudication, Exhibit I,  they  acted in bad faith, and the year not having elapsed  from the issuance of the  decree of registration, which took place on October 8, 1929, until the filing of the motion for review on December 5, 1929, such review was proper on the ground of fraud, in accordance with the provisions of section 38 of Act No. 496.

Even if there  had not been fraud in obtaining the  decree with respect to  lot No.  2, or  the year had elapsed after the issuance of said decree, the petitioners would be entitled to recover of the respondents the ownership of said lot No. 2 by virtue of the said deed of partition and adjudication, Exhibit I, so long as the property remained registered  in their name  and  no third person had acquired it in good faith for a valuable consideration.  (Philippine Land Improvement Co. vs. Bias, p. 540, ante, and citations.)

In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and so hold: (1)  That a co-owner of land who applies for and obtains  the adjudication and registration  in his name of a lot which he knows has not been allotted to him in the  partition, acts in bad  faith, and the decree  issued may be reviewed within the year following such issuance,  in accordance with section  38  of Act No. 496; and  (2) that even in the absence of fraud  in obtaining said decree, or after the lapse of one year after the issuance thereof to said co-owner, he may be compelled to convey said lot to whoever received it in the apportionment, so long as it remains registered in his name, and a third party has not acquired it in good faith for a valuable consideration.

Wherefore, finding no error in the order appealed from, the same  is  hereby affirmed in its entirety,  with costs against the appellants.  So ordered.

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