Case Digest (G.R. No. 177042)
Facts:
Spouses Crisanto Alcazar and Susana Villamayor, G.R. No. 177042, December 10, 2012, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The petition arose from an RTC land registration proceeding and subsequent appellate review by the Court of Appeals.On November 14, 2003, Crisanto Alcazar filed a Petition for Reconstitution of Lost Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. 169526) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, asserting he was the sole heir of his deceased parents and that the owner’s duplicate was lost in April 2003 after being entrusted to third parties. The RTC set the petition for hearing, required statutory posting, and directed service on the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the Pasig City Register of Deeds and the City Prosecutor. No government office appeared at the initial hearing and, with no opposition, Alcazar was allowed to present evidence ex parte.
On January 6, 2004, the RTC issued a decision declaring the owner’s duplicate null and void and directing the Register of Deeds of Pasig to issue a replacement owner’s duplicate (TCT No. PT-125372) under Section 109 of Act No. 496, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1529. The RTC’s decision became final and executory on February 5, 2004, as noted in an Entry of Judgment dated February 16, 2004.
On February 8, 2005, Evelyn Arante filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Annulment of Final Decision, alleging the owner’s duplicate was not lost but was delivered to her as security for a P350,000 loan evidenced by a promissory note and a notarized real estate mortgage (REM) executed on April 4, 2003 (later allegedly annotated April 25, 2003). Arante asserted that when she attempted to register the mortgage she discovered an affidavit of loss had been annotated against TCT No. 169526 and that the RTC had ordered reconstitution despite the duplicate actually being in her constructive and physical possession. Petitioners answered, denying the mortgage and alleging forgery.
After pleadings, pre-trial and submission of memoranda, the CA, in a decision dated November 29, 2006 (CA-G.R. SP No. 88475), annulled and set aside the RTC decision, reinstated the original duplicate TCT No. 169526 in Arante’s custody, and awarded Arante moral damages (P30,000), exemplary damages (P20,000), attorney’s fees (P20,000) and costs. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by CA resolution dated March 14, 2007.
Petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court via a petition for rev...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in its factual findings and credibility determinations in favor of respondent?
- Was the owner’s duplicate TCT No. 169526 "lost" for purposes of Section 109 of PD No. 1529 so as to justify reconstitution by the RTC?
- Did Section 109 of PD No. 1529 apply to petitioners’ circumstances?
- Did the RTC of Pasig City have jurisdiction to order the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate under the circumstances?
- Were the awards of moral damages, exemplary dam...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)