G.R. No. 215925 - Gaoiran vs. Court of Appeals

The subject of the controversy is a 275‑square meter parcel of land located in Barangay Poblacion San Miguel & San Pedro, City of Laoag, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T‑34540.
The title was originally issued in the name of respondent Perlita S. Pablo, who is married to Timoteo S. Pablo.

On September 22, 2009, petitioner Esperanza P. Gaoiran was introduced to Timoteo H. Pablo, Jr., who represented himself as authorized by his wife to sell the property.
Believing the representation, petitioner agreed to purchase the property and paid P500,000.00 on the same day.
In exchange, Timoteo surrendered the first owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T‑34540 to the petitioner and undertook to deliver a deed of absolute sale signed by Perlita on or before October 22, 2009.
Timoteo subsequently failed to deliver the deed of absolute sale, prompting petitioner to pursue legal remedies.

Petitioner filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Timoteo after her repeated demands for either the return of the purchase price or the delivery of an appropriate deed of conveyance went unheeded.
An Information for Estafa was subsequently filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 14, docketed as Criminal Case No. 14608.
On June 8, 2012, petitioner executed an affidavit of possession with notice of lis pendens and presented it to the Register of Deeds of Laoag City for annotation in TCT T‑34540. However, the Register of Deeds declined the annotation on the ground that the complaint was criminal (and not civil) in nature.

Respondent Mary Nyre Dawn Alcantara, acting as the niece of Perlita and as trustee of the title, filed a petition on June 25, 2012 before the RTC of Laoag City. Her petition sought:

A declaration that the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T‑34540, which was allegedly lost, be declared null and void; and
The issuance of a new (second) owner’s duplicate copy of the title.

Mary supported her petition by submitting an affidavit of loss (dated June 14, 2012) which had also been annotated on the back of TCT T‑34540.
An affidavit from Perlita indicated that she had entrusted the title to Mary for safekeeping and, after its loss, encouraged Mary to file the petition for a new certificate.
The RTC of Laoag City, Branch 12, found sufficient evidence and rendered a Decision on August 28, 2012, ordering the issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy and declaring the original (allegedly lost) duplicate as null and void.

On May 17, 2013, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for annulment of judgment.

Petitioner contended that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the first owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T‑34540 was never actually lost but had been in her possession since September 2009.
She argued that the reconstituted title was procured through extrinsic fraud and that the proper deed of conveyance was never executed.

On August 15, 2014, the CA dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment on the basis that a petition under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court could not be used to collaterally attack an issued certificate of title—a decision further upheld by a CA resolution dated November 14, 2014.
Petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in dismissing her petition for annulment.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s petition for annulment of judgment.

The central issue is whether the dismissal was justified given that the first owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T‑34540 was never lost but remained in petitioner’s possession.
Whether the proper remedy was invoked, considering that petitioner’s recourse under Rule 47 (and subsequently Rule 65) was arguably misapplied in a situation that may have warranted a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.