G.R. No. 115595 - Demetriou vs. Court of Appeals

Parties and property involved
Petitioners Antonio Demetr iou, Harriet Demetriou, et al. were alleged co-owners (to the extent of 2/3) of Lot No. 7651-A of the subdivision survey PSD-05-005263 (a portion of Lot 7651 Cad. 221 Tabaco Cadastre) situated at Poblacion, Tabaco, Albay.
The subject property had an area of one thousand ten (1,010) square meters and was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-65878.
Private respondent Hilda Ralla-Almine was the daughter of Pablo Ralla, who was the named owner under TCT No. T-65878 at the time relevant to the petition.

Acquisition of petitioners’ alleged shares and registration delay
Petitioners acquired their alleged two-thirds (2/3) interest from Miriam Catherine Ralla by virtue of two deeds of absolute sale both executed on 11 July 1985.
The sale from Miriam Catherine Ralla was allegedly reconfirmed by another Deed of Absolute Sale executed in July 1986 (as stated in the petition).
The sale from Joan Pauline R. Belista was allegedly ratified and confirmed by an order dated 11 May 1989 of the Regional Trial Court, Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 8, Legaspi City.
At the time of sale to petitioners, there existed a ten-year lease contract over the property scheduled to expire on 15 July 1991.
Petitioners decided to await the termination of the lease before registering the sale and obtaining a new title in their name.

Petitioners’ attempt to register and discovery of the RTC order
After the lease expired, sometime in the first week of August 1991, petitioners’ father went to the Register of Deeds to register the deeds of sale and to obtain a new title in petitioners’ name.
Petitioners’ father learned from the Register of Deeds that, by an order of Judge Rhodie A. Nidea of the RTC of Tabaco, Albay, Branch 16, the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-65878 in petitioners’ possession had been declared of no further force and effect.
The Register of Deeds had issued a new second owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-65878 to private respondent.

Private respondent’s alleged petition for issuance of new duplicate title and alleged false affidavit
Petitioners’ investigation disclosed that on September 20, 1990, private respondent filed a petition with the RTC of Tabaco, Albay, Branch 16, docketed as CAD Case No. T-1024.
Private respondent allegedly falsely and fraudulently alleged that the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-65878 was lost and/or destroyed while in the possession and custody of petitioners, as stated in her Affidavit of Loss.
Petitioners alleged that the affidavit asserted that earnest efforts to locate the title were fruitless.
Petitioners alleged that private respondent also represented that the owner’s duplicate copy had been delivered to her by her mother after the death of her father and that she lost it during the devastation wrought by typhoon “Sisang.”
Petitioners asserted these representations were patently false, fraudulent, and perjurious because petitioners allegedly already purchased 2/3 of the property covered by TCT No. T-65878 on 11 July 1985.
Petitioners further alleged that the owner’s duplicate copy of the title was delivered by private respondent’s brother, Gerardo Ralla, to petitioners on the same day (11 July 1985).

The RTC order and issuance of second owner’s duplicate to private respondent
Petitioners alleged that, based on the fraudulent representations, Judge Rhodie A. Nidea issued an order dated December 7, 1990.
The order allegedly directed the Register of Deeds to issue a second owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-65878 with annotations and encumbrances, declaring the lost or destroyed owner’s duplicate copy of no further force and effect.
Pursuant to the order, the Register of Deeds issued a new second owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-65878 to private respondent.
Petitioners alleged they made repeated demands and settlement attempts, but private respondent refused to deliver the second owner’s duplicate copy.
Petitioners alleged that the order had become final and executory.
Petitioners alleged the order was null and void because it was allegedly issued based on false and fraudulent representations.

(Subscriber-Only)

Nature of the alleged fraud
Whether the fraud alleged in the annulment petition was extrinsic fraud or, if at all, only intrinsic fraud.
Whether the use of an alleged false affidavit of loss in CAD Case No. T-1024 warranted annulment of a final RTC order.

Jurisdictional basis for attacking the judgment
Whether the RTC in CAD Case No. T-1024 acquired jurisdiction when, as petitioners alleged, the certificate of title was not actually lost because it was in petitioners’ possession.
Whether lack of jurisdiction permitted the annulment/attack of the final judgment despite the intrinsic fraud characterization.

Effect of the actual availability of the certificate
Whether Rep. Act No. 26, 18 (as stated in the decision) controlled when a “lost or destroyed” certificate was later found or recovered.
Whether the remedy sought should have been grant...(Subscriber-Only)