Case Summary (G.R. No. 215925)
Factual Background — Sale Allegation and Possession of Title
Petitioner alleges that on September 22, 2009 she was introduced to Timoteo H. Pablo, Jr., who offered for sale the subject property allegedly on behalf of his wife, Perlita. Petitioner delivered P500,000 to Timoteo in exchange for the first owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540 and was told a deed of absolute sale, signed by Perlita, would be delivered by October 22, 2009. Timoteo failed to secure the sale documents or return the money; petitioner retained possession of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540.
Criminal Proceedings
Petitioner filed a complaint for estafa against Timoteo in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Laoag City; an information for estafa was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 14 (Criminal Case No. 14608), after a finding of probable cause.
Attempt to Annotate Adverse Claim
On June 8, 2012 petitioner executed an affidavit of possession with notice of lis pendens and sought annotation of an adverse claim on the original certificate of title at the Register of Deeds of Laoag City. The Register of Deeds advised petitioner that criminal complaints, being criminal and not civil in nature, cannot be annotated on the original certificate of title.
Reconstitution Proceeding and Alleged Loss of Title
Claiming the owner’s duplicate copy was missing, respondent Mary (allegedly Perlita’s niece and trustee of the title) filed a petition in the RTC of Laoag City on June 25, 2012 to declare the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540 lost and to secure issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy. Mary submitted an affidavit of loss dated June 14, 2012 and the Register of Deeds was notified by annotation. Perlita also executed an affidavit stating she had entrusted the owner’s duplicate to Mary and acknowledged its loss, encouraging Mary to seek issuance of a replacement owner’s duplicate.
RTC Decision in Reconstitution Proceeding
The RTC of Laoag City, Branch 12, in a Decision dated August 28, 2012, found the evidence sufficient and ordered issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540, declaring the lost owner’s duplicate null and void. A second owner’s duplicate was thereafter issued in favor of Perlita pursuant to that decision.
Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals
Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 before the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 17, 2013, seeking annulment of the RTC’s August 28, 2012 decision on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner asserted she only discovered issuance of the second owner’s duplicate on April 10, 2013 and maintained that the first owner’s duplicate was not lost but had been in her possession since September 2009, thereby depriving the RTC of jurisdiction to order reconstitution.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling and Rationale
On August 15, 2014 the CA dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment, holding that a Rule 47 petition cannot be used to attack a second owner’s duplicate certificate of title issued in a reconstitution proceeding because such an attack would amount to a collateral attack on a certificate of title, which is proscribed by Section 48 of PD 1529. The CA concluded that the proper remedy was a direct action for cancellation and treated the petition as an improper collateral attack. A motion for reconsideration was denied by CA resolution dated November 14, 2014.
Procedural Challenge in the Supreme Court Petition
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) before the Supreme Court to challenge the CA’s decision. The Supreme Court noted that the proper remedy to review a CA decision in a petition for annulment of judgment is ordinarily a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not Rule 65, because the CA’s August 15, 2014 decision was final and dispositional. The Court, however, emphasized judicial discretion to relax procedural requisites and, in the interest of justice and to avoid prolongation of proceedings, gave due course to the petition despite the procedural lapse.
Legal Standard for Annulment of Judgment and Jurisdictional Rule
Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the sole grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction may be over the person or the subject matter; when jurisdiction is absent over the subject matter, the resulting judgment is void — it divests no rights, is not binding, and cannot form the basis of res judicata. For judicial reconstitution under PD 1529 (Section 109), the critical jurisdictional fact is the actual loss or destruction of the owner’s duplicate certificate: the reconstitution court must be satisfied that the certificate was truly lost or destroyed; if the original is in fact in another’s possession, the reconstituted title is void for lack of jurisdiction.
Application of Precedent on Reconstitution Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court reiterated established doctrine (citing cases such as Strait Times, Spouses Ibias, Alonso, Demetriou, Spouses Paulino, Billote, and Sebastian v. Spouses Cruz): reconstitution is a remedial, restorative process that presupposes a genuinely lost or destroyed duplicate. Where the duplicate is not lost but held by another, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to issue a reconstituted title and the resulting reconstituted certificate is void. The Court emphasized that the decisive inquiry is the fact of loss, not compliance with procedural formalities.
Analysis of the Present Case on the Merits
In this case petitioner presented the original owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540 as evidence before the CA and respondents did not contest the genuineness or authenticity of that duplicate. Petitioner consistently asserted that she had possessed the owner’s duplicate since September 2009. Given that evidence and lack of contestation by respondents, the Supreme Court found that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to order issuance of a new owner’s duplicate because the duplicate was not lost. The absence of loss rendered the RTC’s reconstitution decision void.
Distinction from Spouses Lim Precedent and Collateral-Attack Doctrine
The CA had relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Spouses Lim to assert that petitioner’s Rule 47 petition amounted to an improper collateral attack on a certificate of title.
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 215925)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Esperanza P. Gaoiran seeking reversal of:
- August 15, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 129945; and
- November 14, 2014 Resolution of the CA denying reconsideration.
- Subject property: 275-square meter parcel in Barangay Poblacion San Miguel & San Pedro, City of Laoag, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-34540 issued under respondent Perlita S. Pablo’s name.
- Relevant lower-court proceedings:
- Reconstitution petition filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 12, by Mary Nyre Dawn S. Alcantara for issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540 (claiming loss of original duplicate).
- RTC Decision dated August 28, 2012 ordered issuance of a second owner’s duplicate and declared the lost owner’s duplicate null and void.
- Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 before the CA on May 17, 2013 seeking annulment of the August 28, 2012 RTC Decision on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
- CA dismissed petitioner’s Rule 47 petition on August 15, 2014; motion for reconsideration denied on November 14, 2014.
- Supreme Court (SC) accepted petition for review despite procedural irregularity and resolved on merits; disposition rendered March 7, 2022 in G.R. No. 215925.
Facts
- On September 22, 2009:
- Petitioner was introduced to a certain Timoteo H. Pablo, Jr., who allegedly sought a buyer for land registered under his wife Perlita S. Pablo.
- Timoteo represented that he was authorized by his wife Perlita to sell the property and offered it to petitioner and her husband.
- Petitioner delivered P500,000.00 to Timoteo in exchange for the first owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540; Timoteo undertook to deliver an absolute deed of sale signed by his wife on or before October 22, 2009.
- Timoteo failed to deliver the deed of sale.
- Petitioner demanded return of P500,000.00 or delivery of conveyance; when demands failed, petitioner filed a complaint for estafa with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Laoag City.
- An Information for Estafa was filed before RTC Laoag City, Branch 14 as Criminal Case No. 14608 after probable cause was found.
- On June 8, 2012, petitioner executed an affidavit of possession with notice of lis pendens and sought annotation of an adverse claim in TCT T-34540 at the Register of Deeds (RD) of Laoag City; RD-Laoag advised the criminal complaint could not be annotated because it was criminal, not civil.
- On June 14, 2012, Mary filed an affidavit of loss notifying the Register of Deeds of the alleged loss of the owner’s duplicate of TCT T-34540; the affidavit of loss was annotated at the back of TCT T-34540.
- Perlita executed an affidavit stating she had entrusted the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540 to Mary as administrator/overseer and that it was lost while in Mary’s possession; Perlita encouraged Mary to seek issuance of a new owner’s duplicate.
- Petitioner later alleged that the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540 was never lost but had been surrendered to and was in her possession since September 22, 2009.
RTC Proceedings and Decision
- Mary, representing herself as Perlita’s niece and trustee of TCT T-34540, filed a petition with RTC Laoag City, Branch 12 on June 25, 2012 to declare the owner’s duplicate copy lost and to issue a second owner’s duplicate.
- RTC, finding “sufficient, competent and credible evidence,” issued a Decision on August 28, 2012 ordering issuance of a second owner’s duplicate of TCT T-34540 and declaring the lost owner’s duplicate null and void.
- The RTC thereby authorized reconstitution of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title in lieu of the alleged lost duplicate.
CA Proceedings and Ruling
- Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 before the CA on May 17, 2013 seeking annulment of the RTC’s August 28, 2012 Decision on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, alleging the original owner’s duplicate was in her possession and therefore not lost.
- CA dismissed the petition on August 15, 2014, holding that a petition under Rule 47 cannot be used to impugn a second owner’s duplicate certificate of title issued in a reconstitution proceeding because doing so would amount to a collateral attack on the certificate of title, which is sanctioned by Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
- The CA’s dispositive language: “Accordingly, in view of the foregoing premises, and consistent with the caveat in the first paragraph of Section 5, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Petition for Annulment of Judgment is hereby DISMISSED.”
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated November 14, 2014.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s Rule 47 petition and in concluding that the petition constituted a collateral attack on the reconstituted certificate of title.
- Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to order issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title where the owner’s duplicate allegedly reconstituted was in fact in the possession of another person (petitioner), i.e., whether lack of actual loss/possession by another deprives the RTC of jurisdiction over reconstitution proceedings.
- Whether petitioner’s use of Rule 65 (certiorari) was a proper remedy to assail the CA’s dismissal of her Rule 47 petition.
Parties’ Contentions
- Petitioner:
- Contends the first owner’s duplicate copy of TCT