G.R. No. 144099 - Macabalo-Bravo vs. Macabalo

Petitioner Elvira Macabalo-Bravo filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalookan City for the issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (T.C.T.) No. 232003.
Elvira alleged that the subject lot, originally owned by Reynaldo dela Cruz, had been mortgaged to her; that the owner’s duplicate copy had been surrendered to her; and that the title later went missing from her files despite diligent efforts to locate it.
Based on the petition, the RTC, on December 13, 1996, granted the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy in place of the “lost” title and declared the original T.C.T. No. 232003 null and void.

Private respondent Juan Macabalo, who is also the father of Elvira, filed a petition for annulment of the RTC decision before the Court of Appeals (CA).
In his petition, Juan contended that he was the registered owner of a parcel of land (covered by T.C.T. No. 56408) and had arranged, via a compromise agreement with the dela Cruz spouses, the conveyance of a 200-square meter portion, resulting in the cancellation of T.C.T. No. 56408 and the issuance of new titles (T.C.T. Nos. 232003 and later 232004).
It was alleged that the subject lot covered by T.C.T. No. 232003 had been mortgaged and later that Juan, though initially intended to redeem the property, had sought to protect his interest by placing his daughter’s name as mortgagee while keeping the original owner’s duplicate copy in his possession.

The division of the subject land between Elvira and her brother Rolando led to the issuance of T.C.T. Nos. 322765 and 322766 in their respective names, following the issuance of the new duplicate title by the RTC.
During the pre-trial conference set for January 12, 1999, and the subsequent hearing before the Division Clerk of Court (DCC) on February 1 or 18, 1999, both parties presented their respective documentary evidence.
Petitioner Juan presented several documents and testimonies to establish that the original duplicate copy was never lost but was actually in his possession, while Elvira and Rolando countered by alleging dubious circumstances regarding the cancellation and reissuance of titles.

The CA noted that evidence was merely marked as exhibits without proper formal offer of evidence, in contravention of the Rules of Court.
Questions arose whether the deposition of evidence via the DCC, rather than before a Justice of the CA or a judge of the RTC, compromised the parties’ right to due process.
Discrepancies in the hearing dates (February 1 versus February 18, 1999) further complicated the evidentiary record.

The central factual dispute involved the existence of the original owner’s duplicate copy of T.C.T. No. 232003, with Juan affirming its possession and Elvira contending that it was lost from her files.
Additional controversy centered on whether the annulment of the RTC order and the subsequent issuance of new titles affected the legal title and rights of the petitioners.
The procedural issues also included whether the RTC had proper jurisdiction, given that the only inquiry in a petition for reissuance should be the existence or loss of the duplicate copy, not the evidentiary proof of actual ownership.

Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to issue an order for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of title when the original duplicate copy was not actually lost but in the possession of another party.

Whether Juan Macabalo, by virtue of possessing the original owner’s duplicate copy, qualifies as the real party-in-interest under the law.

Whether the parties were deprived of their right to due process by being denied the opportunity to properly present their witnesses and formally offer evidence before the Court of Appeals.
Whether the reliance on testimony and documentary exhibits, which were not formally offered as required under Sections 34 and 35, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, invalidated the evidentiary basis of the CA’s findings.

Whether the issuance of new titles (T.C.T. Nos. 322765 and 322766) derived from the alleged void duplicate copy can remain valid if the RTC order is nullified.

Whether the proceedings for reissuance of a duplicate copy of a certificate of title should involve an inquiry into the substantive ownership of the property, despite the established principle that a certificate of title is merely evidence of ownership and does not itself vest title.