Case Digest (G.R. No. 215925)
Facts:
Gaoiran v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 215925, March 07, 2022, the Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Esperanza P. Gaoiran; respondents include the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12 of Ilocos Norte, Spouses Timoteo S. Pablo and Perlita P. Pablo, Mary Nyre Dawn S. Alcantara, and the Register of Deeds of Laoag City.In September 2009 petitioner was introduced to Timoteo H. Pablo, Jr., who represented that he was authorized by his wife Perlita S. Pablo to sell a 275-sq.m. lot covered by TCT No. T-34540 in Laoag City. Petitioner paid P500,000 to Timoteo and received the first owner’s duplicate (the original owner’s duplicate) of TCT T-34540; Timoteo purportedly undertook to deliver a deed of absolute sale signed by Perlita but failed to do so. Petitioner filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Timoteo; an information was subsequently filed in the RTC.
On June 8, 2012 petitioner filed an affidavit of possession with notice of lis pendens and sought annotation of an adverse claim with the Register of Deeds, which declined to annotate because the complaint was criminal in nature. On June 14, 2012 Mary filed an affidavit of loss and, on June 25, 2012, filed a petition in RTC Branch 12 praying that the lost owner’s duplicate of TCT T-34540 be declared null and a second owner’s duplicate be issued; Perlita supported the petition with an affidavit. The RTC, finding the petition sufficiently supported, issued an August 28, 2012 Decision ordering issuance of a second owner’s duplicate and declaring the lost duplicate null and void.
Petitioner discovered in April 2013 that a reconstituted owner’s duplicate had been issued and on May 17, 2013 filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 (alleging extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction), claiming the original owner’s duplicate was never lost but in her possession. The CA dismissed the petition on August 15, 2014, reasoning that a Rule 47 petition could not be used to collaterally attack a reconstituted certificate of title and citing PD 1529; its dispositive pa...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals' August 15, 2014 Decision and November 14, 2014 Resolution?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s Rule 47 petition for annulment of judgment—i.e., did the RTC have jurisdiction to issue a reconstituted owner’s duplicate when the original owner’s duplicate was allege...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)