This petition for certiorari was  filed  by Maria Elviña against Enrique V.  Filamor, as  Judge  of the  Court  of First  Instance  of Nueva Ecija, and Potenciana C. Domingo, praying for the reasons stated that this court set aside (1) the order  of the respondent judge  dated  July 29, 1931, which vacated the decision rendered on March 16, 1931, declaring Potenciana C. Domingo in default, and adjudicating lots Nos. 1 and 2 of registration proceeding No. 1970, G. L. R. 0. Record No. 35645 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to the petitioner, Maria Elvina; (2)  the order of June 23,1931, denying the motion for a reconsideration of the aforesaid decision; (3) the order requiring the issuance  of the decree  of  confirmation and registration dated June  23, 1931; and (4)  the order of July 15, 1931, denying the motion for reconsideration of said order and ordering the reopening of the case so that the respondent Potenciana  C. Domingo might file an answer. The relevant facts  necessary to decide the point of law raised on appeal are as follows:

The land involved  in  this proceeding was already  litigated by the petitioner, Maria Elviña and the respondent, Potenciana  C. Domingo in civil case No. 3265, which was decided in favor of the latter and in registration proceeding No.  1644, G. L. R. O. Record  No. 28563 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (Exhibits D,  E,  and F).

The same land  is  involved  in registration  proceeding No.  1934, G.  L. R. 0. Record No. 35086, which  is still pending,  Potenciana  C.  Domingo, the respondent  herein, being the applicant, and Maria Elviña, the petitioner herein, the opponent.

On September 13, 1929, the petitioner filed an application for the registration of a parcel of land comprising  lots Nos. 1 and 2 of registration proceeding No. 1970, G. L. R. O. Record  No. 35645  (Exhibit A-petitioner)  which was amended on December 8, 1930 (Exhibit C).   That application was set for hearing on March 16,  1931,  8.30 a. m., before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.   After due publication,  the case came  up for hearing on the date indicated, i. e., March  16, 1931, and there being no opposition to the application, the court entered an order of general default (Exhibit F-petitioner), and corresponding decision, adjudicating said lots and decreeing their registration to the petitioner Maria Elvina (Exhibit G).

On April 23, 1931, or thirty-eight days after that decision was promulgated, Potenciana C. Domingo filed a motion to set it aside on the ground that she had not been given notice of the pendency of said registration case (Exhibit H).

On June 23, 1931, Judge Buenaventura Ocampo, then presiding over the Court of First Instance  of  Nueva Ecija, denied the motion  and ordered the issuance of the final decree of confirmation and registration of the petitioner's title to said land  (Exhibits I and J)  which up to that time had not been issued.

On July 9, 1931,  Potenciana C.  Domingo moved for the reconsideration of the  said  order, dated  June 23, 1931, denying her petition to set aside the decision rendered on March 16, 1931, which motion had  been denied  by the respondent judge on July 15, 1931  (Exhibits  K and L).

On July  16, 1931, the respondent Potenciana C. Domingo filed another motion under oath, amended on July 23, 1931, by another, praying the respondent judge to reconsider his orders dated June 23d and July 15, 1931, alleging, among other grounds, besides those set up  in the preceding motions, that  she was the owner of the land registered in the petitioner's name in registration proceeding No. 1970, G. L. R. O. Record No. 35645 which land had already  been litigated  by  them in  civil case No. 3265 and registration proceeding No. 1644, G. L. R. O. Record No. 28563, the case being decided  in favor of the respondent, and in registration proceeding No.  1934, G. L. R. O. Record No. 35086, which is still pending;  and  she there further alleged that she had been in possession  of said land for over twenty-five years publicly, peacefully, continuously, and adversely (Exhibits 1 and 2).

On July  29, 1931,  the respondent judge granted  the respondent's  amended motion  filed  on July 23, 1931, and entered the order now sought to be set aside, revoking the order of general default entered on  March 16, 1931 (Exhibit M).   The petitioner excepted to this order on August 24, 1931.

The only question to be decided here is whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction  in  issuing the order of July 29,  1931, setting aside the decision of March 16, 1931, which declared a general default and  adjudicated to the petitioner Maria Elvina lots Nos. 1 and 2 of registration  proceeding No. 1970,  G. L.  R. O. Record No.  35645 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, and ordering their registration in her name.

The decision of  March 16, 1931, mentioned heretofore was  rendered after the respondent Potenciana C. Domingo had been declared in default, and the various motions which she  had filed to set aside that decision  and annul the default  against her were based upon her not having been personally notified of the pendency of the registration proceeding in the course of which it was rendered, while the petitioner Maria Elviña was aware that she was in possession of the land concerned in that case, and notwithstanding the fact that they had  previously litigated the  property, when the respondent won the case; the motions had an affidavit of  merits attached.  Although that decision became final because  Potenciana C. Domingo did not appeal from it, she still was entitled to ask to  be relieved from it on the ground that fraud had been employed in procuring it, and  that it was the result of surprise  or excusable negligence, providing  she requested  such relief within a reasonable time, not exceeding  six months from  the date of the  decision.  (Larrobis vs.  Wislizenus and  Smith, Bell & Co.,  42  Phil.,  401;  Philippine Manufacturing Co.  vs. Imperial, 47  Phil.,  810;  Philippine Manufacturing^Co. and Government  of the Philippine  Islands  vs.  Cabangis,  49 Phil., 107.)

The decision mentioned above was dated  March 16, 1931, and the motions to set it aside were filed within the period of six months thereafter.  Although  on June  23,  1931, the order for the issuance of the decree of confirmation and registration had already been issued, and as that order was not put into effect and the chief of the General Land Registration  Office has not yet issued  the  proper  decree, which would  have made  the order  aforesaid final, section 38 of Act  No. 496  is not yet applicable where it  provides that the decree of confirmation and registration may be reviewed  only within  the year  following its  issuance, and upon the ground of  fraud.   (De los Reyes vs.  De  Villa, 48 Phil., 227.)

Inasmuch as  the  decree of registration had  not been issued  when the motions were  filed  and  the respondent judge entered the order of July  29,  1931,  and as the six- month period fixed  in section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reckoned from the date  of the decision, had not elapsed when Potenciana C.  Domingo filed the  motions, the respondent judge acted with jurisdiction in entering the order of July 29, 1931.

In view of the foregoing consideration, we are of opinion and so hold that an order of default and the decision wherein said order is included, entered in a registration proceeding,  may be set aside even after thirty days from its promulgation,  by reason  of fraud, surprise, or  excusable negligence,  if a motion is filed  to that effect within six months  from the date of the decision, under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure,  and  before the chief of the General Land Registration Office issues the decree of registration in pursuance of  the order to that end.

Wherefore, the petition for the writ of certiorari  is hereby denied,  with costs against  the petitioner.  So ordered.

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