Facts:

• The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Tan Po Chu against the Court of Appeals (CA) and respondents Felix T. Chingkoe, Rosita L. Chingkoe, and Rodrigo Garcia.
• The CA dismissed Tan's petition for annulment of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision in LRC Case No. 2005-771-MK.
• The RTC decision declared the owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 157923 as lost and ordered its reissuance.
• Fiber Technology Corporation (FiberTech), a Philippine corporation, owned a parcel of land in Marikina covered by TCT No. 157923.
• The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) allegedly revoked FiberTech's registration on September 29, 2003.
• On April 4, 2005, respondent Felix Chingkoe executed an affidavit of loss for TCT No. 157923 on behalf of FiberTech.
• On June 2, 2005, FiberTech, represented by respondent Rodrigo Garcia, filed a petition for the reissuance of the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 157923 based on Felix's affidavit of loss.
• The RTC granted the petition on July 23, 2006.
• Tan Po Chu, mother of FiberTech's incorporators Faustino and respondent Felix Chingkoe, filed a petition before the CA for annulment of the RTC's decision, alleging that the owner's duplicate TCT was in her custody and that Felix committed perjury.
• The CA dismissed Tan's petition on January 16, 2008, citing procedural infirmities and lack of substantial merit.
• Tan moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied it on July 16, 2008.
• Tan then filed the present petition for certiorari on September 19, 2008.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Tan Po Chu's petition for annulment of the RTC's decision.
2. No, the RTC did not have jurisdiction to reconstitute the owner's du...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court observed that Tan Po Chu resorted to the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
• However, the Court decided to address the petition due to the potential harm to the general public and the integrity of the Torrens system.
• The CA committed a grave error by dismissing Tan's petition based on procedural technicalities and irrelevant considerations.
• The CA failed to address t...continue reading