G.R. No. 48976 - People vs. Macbul

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by petitioner Mercedita C. Coombs.
The petition seeks to reverse and set aside two resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 2009, and May 25, 2010 (arising from CA-G.R. SP No. 107949).
The underlying matter stems from a petition for annulment of judgment filed before the Court of Appeals to question the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated August 26, 2004 in LRC Case No. 04-035.

The RTC decision declared the lost owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6715 as null and void.
The RTC ordered the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City to issue a new owner’s duplicate under the same terms and conditions as the original, including any annotations that had not been lawfully cancelled.
Petitioner Coombs, the owner of the property covered by TCT No. 6715, maintained that she had always possessed the duplicate copy, which was never lost or destroyed.

The owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 had always been in her custody and was never lost.
She did not authorize her attorney, Victoria C. CastaAeda, to file the petition for the issuance of a second duplicate, nor did she agree to sell the property to respondent Virgilio Veloso Santos.

The RTC lacked jurisdiction over the petition for annulment of judgment because the proceedings for the judicial reconstitution of a lost certificate should only apply when the certificate is actually lost.
The petition for annulment should not be dismissed for failure to allege extrinsic fraud or to avail of ordinary remedies (e.g., motion for new trial or reconsideration) as the issue was fundamentally one of lack of jurisdiction.

For due course to her petition and for the reversal and setting aside of the CA resolutions.
That the CA be directed to reinstate her petition for annulment of judgment and proceed with further hearings.

Respondents, which include Victoria C. CastaAeda, Virgilio Veloso Santos, spouses Pancho and Edith Leviste, the BPI Family Savings Bank, and the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City, argued as follows:

The petition was based on extrinsic fraud, not on the lack of jurisdiction, and petitioner Coombs failed to sufficiently state facts constituting extrinsic fraud.
Petitioner Coombs did not comply with the requirements under Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court by failing to avail herself of available remedies and by not appending necessary supporting documents such as witness affidavits.
The petition is, in substance, a collateral attack on the title, which is not permitted under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

It should not have been impleaded in the petition since it acted merely as a mortgagee in good faith and for value with relation to the subject property.
The petition seeks to nullify an RTC decision to which the bank was never a party, and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over its inclusion.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright petitioner Coombs’ petition for annulment of judgment.

Specifically, whether the dismissal was proper given that the petition was grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter—since the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 was never lost—rather than on extrinsic fraud.
Whether the technical requirements (such as the necessity of appending affidavits and documents, or showing failure to avail of ordinary remedies) were properly applied when the underlying ground was a jurisdictional defect.