G.R. No. 123031 - Cebu International Fice Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM), as the registered owner of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 21320, filed two separate petitions for replacement of its lost owner’s duplicate title.
The first petition (docketed as LRC Case No. 11-AD-1335) was filed on January 28, 2011, and later dismissed by RTC, Branch 62 in La Trinidad, Benguet for insufficiency of evidence—specifically, PBCOM failed to prove that it had exerted all possible efforts to locate the missing duplicate title.
The second petition (docketed as LRC Adm. Case No. 12-AD-1401) contained essentially the same allegations as the first, but was filed with RTC, Branch 63. It was dismissed motu proprio on the ground of res judicata, given that the issue had already been adjudicated in the first petition.

Its status as the registered owner, having acquired the property by extrajudicial foreclosure sale on March 2, 1985.
The discovery, only in May 2010, that the owner’s duplicate title was missing from its records, presumably due to internal lapses (e.g., non-transmission of pertinent records from its La Union branch to its Makati head office).
An affidavit of loss was duly filed with the Register of Deeds of Benguet.

The petitioner presented evidence through an ex parte submission and the testimony of its witness, Orlando Rafael Cucueco, Jr., who indicated that efforts to locate the lost title had not been exhaustive.
The witness’s testimony acknowledged that the lost title might have been retained by previous accountable officers or even the lawyer responsible for the foreclosure proceedings.
PBCOM failed to demonstrate that it had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of the original duplicate, which the RTC considered necessary before granting a petition for replacement.

RTC, Branch 62 dismissed the first petition for lack of evidence that the title was irretrievably lost as required by law.
Instead of appealing that ruling, PBCOM filed a second petition with essentially the same cause of action, which RTC, Branch 63 dismissed on the ground of res judicata—contending that the matter had already been decided.
PBCOM sought reconsideration at the RTC level, and eventually raised a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, challenging:

The dismissal on the ground of res judicata.
The appropriateness of dismissing the petition without first determining if the evidence intended for the second petition differed from that considered in the first petition.

The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed PBCOM’s petition for certiorari by holding that:

PBCOM availed the wrong remedy, as dismissal on res judicata is a final, appealable order.
All essential elements of res judicata were present because the two petitions involved the same parties and sought the replacement of the identical duplicate title.

PBCOM then filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to challenge the CA’s decision.

Whether PBCOM availed of the correct remedy by filing a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to challenge the dismissal of its second petition on the ground of res judicata, instead of resorting to an ordinary appeal.

Whether the RTC, Branch 63 correctly dismissed the second petition based on res judicata, considering that both petitions involved the same cause of action related to obtaining a replacement owner’s duplicate TCT.