Case Digest (G.R. No. 149190)
Facts:
Felicisimo L. Opriasa and Pastor C. Ofilan, G.R. No. 149190, December 19, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. This is a Rule 45 petition for review of the Court of Appeals Decision dated 31 July 2000 and Resolution dated 18 July 2001 in CA G.R. SP No. 45484 (Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr., with Associate Justices Demetrio G. Demetria and Jose L. Sabio, Jr., concurring).On 15 June 1990 the City Government of Quezon City (respondent), represented by then Mayor Brigido R. Simon, Jr., filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 76, LRC Case No. Q-4146(90), a petition to reconstitute original Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23110 (TCT No. 23110), alleging the original title was destroyed in the 11 June 1988 fire at the Quezon City Register of Deeds and relying on a certified true copy of the title issued 5 January 1987; reconstitution was sought under Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 26 (RA 26).
The RTC scheduled hearing and caused publication and posting of the notice of hearing; at the 8 November 1990 hearing, with no opposition appearing, the court entered a general order of default against the whole world except the government and allowed ex parte presentation of evidence. The Land Registration Authority (LRA) later informed the court (13 November 1990) that the technical description was unclear and requested a clearer copy for verification. Nevertheless, the RTC, by Judge Manuel M. Calanog, Jr., issued an order on 13 March 1991 granting reconstitution; that order became final on 17 April 1991 and the Register of Deeds issued TCT No. RT-28565 (reconstituted TCT).
In late 1996 petitioner Opriasa discovered the issuance of TCT No. RT-28565 while verifying land records. On 2 October 1997 petitioners (joined by several others) filed in the Court of Appeals a petition to annul the RTC’s 13 March 1991 Order alleging lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud because occupants/persons in possession (including petitioners) were not personally notified as required by Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26; they also alleged the RTC acted without waiting for the LRA report in violation of Section 8 of LRC Circular No. 35, and pointed to a discrepancy in area and to the RTC’s alleged direction to reconstitute the title “in the name of the Quezon City Government.”
In its 31 July 2000 Decision the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding compliance with RA 26’s jurisdictional requirements, no extrinsic fraud (or that the action ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution despite alleged lack of actual notice to petitioners as occupants or persons in possession of the property under Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26?
- Was there extrinsic fraud that would void the RTC’s 13 March 1991 Order?
- Had the period to file a petition for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud prescribed?
- Did the trial court act without jurisdiction when it issued the 13 March 1991 Order without waiting for the LRA report (per Section 8 of LRC Circular No. 35)?
- Did the trial court act without or in excess of jurisdiction when (a) it ordered the reconstitution of the title “in the name of the Quezon City Government,” and (b) it ordered reconstitution despite an all...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)