Case Summary (G.R. No. 197122)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- RTC Decision in LRC Case No. 04-035: August 26, 2004 (ordered issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715).
- Court of Appeals Resolutions dismissing petitioner’s annulment action: April 30, 2009 and May 25, 2010.
- Supreme Court decision: March 15, 2017.
Petitioner filed for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court; after dismissal by the Court of Appeals, she elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable, as the decision date is after 1990).
- Rules of Court: Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari), Rule 47 (Annulment of Judgment) — specifically Sections 1, 2 and 4 of Rule 47.
- Republic Act No. 26 (Section 10) regarding judicial reconstitution of lost or destroyed owner’s duplicate certificates of title.
- Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Section 48) referenced by respondents regarding the protection and finality of registered titles.
- Controlling jurisprudence cited in the decision (e.g., Manila v. Manzo; Veneracion v. Mancilla; Tan Po Chu; a line of cases holding loss of certificate is jurisdictional).
Facts Underlying the Dispute
Petitioner Coombs averred that she was the registered owner of the lot covered by TCT No. 6715 and that the owner’s duplicate copy was never lost but remained in her possession. Despite that, a petition for issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy was filed in the RTC (LRC Case No. 04-035), and the RTC rendered a decision declaring the duplicate TCT No. 6715 null and void and ordering issuance of a new owner’s duplicate TCT. The reconstituted or replacement TCT (No. 14115) was issued in the name of respondent Santos, who subsequently sold the property to the spouses Leviste; the Levistes later executed a mortgage over the property in favor of BPI Family. Coombs asserted she did not authorize Castañeda to file the petition for a second duplicate nor to sell the property.
Court of Appeals’ Rulings and Grounds for Dismissal
The Court of Appeals dismissed Coombs’ petition for annulment of judgment on two principal grounds:
- Reliance on Section 1, Rule 47: the petition failed to allege that petitioner had been precluded, without fault on her part, from availing of ordinary remedies (motion for new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other remedies) before instituting the annulment action; the CA treated this failure as fatal under Section 1.
- Failure to comply with Section 4, Rule 47 and controlling authority (Veneracion v. Mancilla): petitioner did not append affidavits of witnesses or sufficient supporting documents; thus, the petition lacked substance and could be dismissed outright.
Contentions of the Parties
Petitioner’s contentions:
- The owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 was never lost and remained in her custody; therefore the RTC lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant a reconstitution petition. She asserted the annulment petition was therefore grounded on lack of jurisdiction (a recognized basis under Section 2, Rule 47).
- She could not have availed of ordinary remedies because she was not notified of the RTC proceedings and only discovered the RTC decision when attempting to pay real property taxes in March 2005.
- She appended relevant documentary evidence (the owner’s duplicate copy and the RTC Decision) and had no witnesses other than herself; she argued lack of separate witness affidavits should not be fatal.
Respondents’ contentions:
- The spouses Leviste argued petitioner’s action was actually based on extrinsic fraud and that petitioner failed to properly plead facts constituting extrinsic fraud. They also relied on petitioner’s failure to allege non-availability of ordinary remedies and lack of required supporting affidavits/documents. They further argued the petition amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on titles protected under Section 48 of PD No. 1529.
- BPI Family contended it was a bona fide mortgagee and should not have been impleaded in the annulment petition and that the Court lacked jurisdiction over it given it was not a party to the RTC proceedings.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright petitioner Coombs’ petition for annulment of judgment.
Supreme Court’s Holding and Legal Analysis
- The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritorious and that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition outright.
- Ground of Annulment: The Court emphasized that Section 2, Rule 47 provides only two valid grounds for annulment of judgment: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that Coombs’ petition was expressly grounded on lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter, not on extrinsic fraud. She alleged that the owner’s duplicate copy was never lost and was actually in her possession; under controlling jurisprudence, the fact of loss is jurisdictional in a judicial reconstitution proceeding. If the duplicate was not lost, the trial court lacked authority to proceed and to order reconstitution.
- Prima Facie Case: The Court found Coombs’ averments, together with the attached documents (the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 and the RTC Decision), sufficient to make out a prima facie case that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. The presence of a copy of the duplicate title alleged to have been missing supports the assertion that it was not, in fact, lost; the RTC Decision itself, read together with controlling jurisprudence cited by petitioner, supported the contention that the decision was rendered without jurisdiction.
- No Need to Plead Exhaustion of Ordinary Remedies: The Court clarified that when annulment is grounded on lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner need not allege that ordinary remedies were unavailable through no fault of her own. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void and may be questioned at any time, subject only to laches. Thus the CA’s reliance on Section 1, Rule 47 (as a precondition) was misplaced in the context of lack-of-jurisdiction claims.
- Documents and Affidavits Requirement: The Court explained Veneracion’s requirements (particularity of facts and attaching affidavits/documents) but held that in thi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197122)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- G.R. No. 192353, March 15, 2017; reported at 807 Phil. 383, First Division; Decision penned by Justice Leonardo‑De Castro.
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated April 30, 2009 and May 25, 2010 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 107949.
- Originating matter: Petition for annulment of judgment filed before the Court of Appeals seeking to declare null and void the RTC Decision dated August 26, 2004 in LRC Case No. 04‑035 (Regional Trial Court, Branch 206, Muntinlupa City).
- Dispositive portion of the RTC Decision ordered the cancellation of owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 and directed issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 by the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City under the same terms and to include annotations not lawfully ordered cancelled, upon payment of prescribed fees.
Facts as Alleged by Petitioner
- Petitioner Mercedita C. Coombs (Coombs) is the owner of the real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6715, situated on Apitong Street, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City.
- In March 2005, when attempting to pay real property tax for the property covered by TCT No. 6715, Coombs was informed that the property was no longer listed under her name.
- Upon verification, Coombs discovered that TCT No. 6715 had been cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 14115 issued in the name of respondent Virgilio Veloso Santos (Santos).
- TCT No. 6715 was ordered cancelled by the RTC in a Decision dated August 26, 2004 in LRC Case No. 04‑035 entitled “In Re: Petition for the Issuance of Second Owner's Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6715, [by] Mercedita C. Coombs, represented by her Atty.‑in‑Fact Victoria C. CastaAeda.”
- Coombs asserts she never authorized Victoria C. CastaAeda to file the petition for issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 nor asked CastaAeda to sell the subject property.
- Santos allegedly sold the property to respondents spouses Pancho and Edith Leviste (spouses Leviste).
- The spouses Leviste executed a real estate mortgage over the subject property in favor of respondent BPI Family Savings Bank (BPI Family).
- Coombs’ central factual claim: the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 had never been lost and had always been in her custody.
Petitioner's Legal Claim and Ground for Annulment
- Primary legal contention: the RTC lacked jurisdiction to entertain LRC Case No. 04‑035 because the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 was never lost; therefore, the RTC’s Decision is null and void.
- Petitioner framed the remedy sought as annulment of judgment (to declare the RTC Decision void), declaration of nullity of sales and titles, and claims for damages.
- Petitioner asserted she only discovered the RTC Decision when paying real property taxes in March 2005 and that she was never notified of the LRC Case No. 04‑035 proceedings.
Court of Appeals’ April 30, 2009 Resolution (Initial Dismissal)
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment relying on Section 1, Rule 47 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- The appellate court concluded the petition failed to allege that the petitioner had been prevented, through no fault of her own, from availing the remedies enumerated in Section 1, Rule 47 (motion for new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedy).
- The CA characterized the petition as insufficient in substance and observed that the petition appeared to rely on extrinsic fraud; however, it found failure to state facts constituting extrinsic fraud as required by Section 2, Rule 47.
- The CA found that, because petitioner did not show that ordinary remedies were unavailable or that extrinsic fraud was sufficiently alleged, the petition lacked prima facie merit.
Court of Appeals’ May 25, 2010 Resolution (Denial of Reconsideration)
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration, insisting the petition was based on lack of jurisdiction rather than extrinsic fraud.
- The Court of Appeals denied the motion, holding:
- The RTC has jurisdiction over proceedings involving title to real property and land registration cases and thus had jurisdiction over LRC Case No. 04‑035.
- Petitioner failed to append affidavits of witnesses or documents as required by Section 4, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
- The CA cited Veneracion v. Mancilla as authority that failure to append necessary documents may justify outright dismissal or denial of due course.
- Dispositive pronouncement: the motion was denied and the petition was dismissed with finality.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright petitioner Coombs’ petition for annulment of judgment.
Parties’ Arguments on Appeal
- Petitioner Coombs:
- Maintained she was never notified of LRC Case No. 04‑035 proceedings, and as a stranger to the case could not have availed of remedies enumerated in Section 1, Rule 47.
- Cited jurisprudence (Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals; Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals; Alabang Development Corporation v. Valenzuela; Demetriou v. Court of Appeals) to support the proposition that the RTC lacked jurisdiction where the duplicate certificate was not lost but in the possession of the owner.
- Asserted she appended all relevant documents to her petition and explained absence of witness affidavits because she had no witness other than herself; alleged facts were already in the petition.
- Prayed for reversal of the CA Resolutions, that the CA be directed to give due course to her petition for annulment of judgment, and to proceed with further hearings on annulment, nullity of sales and titles, and damages.
- Respondents spouses Levis