G.R. No. 250613 - Macalinao vs. Macalinao

Joy Vanessa M. Sebastian (petitioner) filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging a Decision dated March 27, 2014 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69 in LRC Case No. 421.
Respondents are Spouses Nelson C. Cruz and Cristina P. Cruz (Spouses Cruz), and the Register of Deeds for the Province of Pangasinan (RD-Pangasinan).

Nelson Cruz is the registered owner of a 40,835-square meter parcel of land in Brgy. Bogtong-Bolo, Mangatarem, Pangasinan, covered by Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo (OCT) No. P-41566.
In November 2009, Nelson, through his father and attorney-in-fact, Lamberto P. Cruz, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale transferring the subject land in favor of Sebastian.
Sebastian paid the purchase price and was given possession of the land, the OCT, a General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed by Lamberto, and copies of Tax Declaration and Property Index numbers by Lamberto.
Sebastian paid applicable taxes (capital gains tax and others) to facilitate transfer of title in her name.

Upon presenting the documents to the RD-Pangasinan to register the title transfer, Sebastian was directed to secure a Special Power of Attorney from Spouses Cruz authorizing Lamberto to sell the property to her, which was not furnished despite promise.
To protect her rights, Sebastian annotated an adverse claim on OCT No. P-41566 on August 2, 2011.

Nelson Cruz had executed an Affidavit of Loss dated September 23, 2013 stating the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. P-41566 was lost.
Spouses Cruz filed a petition before the RTC for issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy of the title (LRC Case No. 421).
On March 27, 2014, the RTC issued a Decision granting the petition and ordered the issuance of a new duplicate owner’s copy in their names.

Sebastian filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA alleging lack of jurisdiction by the RTC in LRC Case No. 421.
She contended that the original owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. P-41566 was not lost but was actually in her possession all along, thus rendering the RTC’s reconstitution order void.

The CA, in a Resolution dated March 13, 2015, dismissed Sebastian’s petition for annulment of judgment, ruling that compliance with publication and notice of hearing by Spouses Cruz imparted jurisdiction to the RTC without the need for personal notice to Sebastian.
Sebastian moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied on October 9, 2015.
Sebastian then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying due course to Sebastian’s petition for annulment of judgment and dismissing it outright.
Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the reconstitution proceedings in LRC Case No. 421 given that the original owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. P-41566 was allegedly not lost but in possession of Sebastian.