Case Digest (G.R. No. 184348)
Facts:
Tan Po Chu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 184348, April 04, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Tan Po Chu sought certiorari review of the Court of Appeals' January 16, 2008 and July 16, 2008 resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 101727. The CA had dismissed Tan's petition for annulment of judgment challenging the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Marikina City, Branch 193 (LRC Case No. 2005-771-MK) decision that ordered the reissuance of an owner's duplicate Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 157923.
The underlying facts began with Fiber Technology Corporation (FiberTech), registered with the SEC (No. 0000142818) and the registered owner of the subject lot under TCT No. 157923. The SEC allegedly revoked FiberTech's registration on September 29, 2003. On April 4, 2005, respondent Felix T. Chingkoe executed an affidavit of loss of the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 157923. On June 2, 2005, a petition for reissuance/replacement of the owner's duplicate was filed in the name of FiberTech, purportedly represented by respondent Rodrigo Garcia pursuant to a December 2, 2004 board resolution; the petition alleged that Felix and his wife Rosita L. Chingkoe had acquired 100% of FiberTech by an NLRC award, that the former officers could not produce the owner's duplicate, and that an exhaustive search failed to locate the title. The petition was raffled to the RTC (Judge Alice G. Gutierrez) as LRC Case No. 2005-771-MK.
On July 23, 2006, the RTC granted the petition, declared the owner's duplicate lost, and ordered reissuance. On December 21, 2007, Tan (mother of two incorporators including Felix) — joined nominally by FiberTech — filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of judgment (CA-G.R. SP No. 101727). Tan alleged she was the lawful keeper of the original owner's duplicate, that Felix knew this and committed perjury in his affidavit of loss, that Felix and Rosita did not own 100% of FiberTech, and that Rosita and Garcia were not stockholders of record; she invoked authorities including New Durawood Co. v. Court of Appeals, Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals, Strait Times v. CA, and Demetriou v. CA to argue that reconstituted titles are void when the duplicate is in another's possession.
The CA dismissed Tan's petition outright on January 16, 2008 for procedural infirmities (verification and certification of non-forum shopping allegedly signed by Tan alone without shown authority to sign for the corporation; petition omitted Tan's actual address as required by Rule 46 §3; and the attached copy of the owner's duplicate was not a certified true copy) and for lack of substantial merit, holding the RTC h...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to challenge the Court of Appeals' outright dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment on procedural and technical grounds?
- Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction to reissue a duplicate TCT under Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529 when the alleged owner's duplicate was claimed ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)