Title
Gaoiran vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 215925
Decision Date
Mar 7, 2022
Petitioner paid Perlita’s husband P500,000 for land, received a duplicate title, yet no deed was delivered. RTC reconstituted title, claiming loss; SC reversed, declaring it void due to jurisdiction error, as original title was with petitioner, not lost.
reconstituted title
original title
possession

Case Summary (G.R. No. 215925)

Factual Background

On September 22, 2009, petitioner alleged that her friends introduced to her Timoteo H. Pablo, Jr., who supposedly acted as a buyer-introducer and who represented that he was looking for a buyer of land registered under the name of his wife, Perlita S. Pablo. Petitioner claimed that Timoteo offered the subject property for sale to petitioner and her husband. Petitioner further alleged that Timoteo induced her to purchase the property by representing that he was authorized by his wife to sell the land.

That same day, petitioner said that she delivered the purchase price of P500,000.00 to Timoteo and, in exchange, Timoteo surrendered the first owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540 and promised to deliver a deed of absolute sale signed by his wife on or before October 22, 2009. Petitioner alleged that Timoteo failed to comply. After demands were made, petitioner instituted before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Laoag City a complaint for Estafa against Timoteo. An information for estafa was then filed before the RTC of Laoag City, Branch 14 as Criminal Case No. 14608.

On June 8, 2012, petitioner executed an affidavit of possession with notice of lis pendens, and she brought it to the Register of Deeds of Laoag City for annotation on TCT T-34540. The Register of Deeds advised her that the estafa complaint, being criminal rather than civil, could not be annotated on the original certificate of title.

Meanwhile, claiming that the owner’s duplicate copy was missing, Mary Nyre Dawn S. Alcantara—presenting herself as Perlita’s niece and trustee—filed before the RTC of Laoag City on June 25, 2012 a petition praying that the lost owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540 be declared null and void and that a second owner’s duplicate copy be issued. Mary supported her petition with an affidavit of loss executed on June 14, 2012, and with notice to the Register of Deeds. The loss annotation had also been made at the back of TCT T-34540. Perlita executed a separate affidavit stating that she had entrusted the owner’s duplicate copy to Mary, but that it was lost in Mary’s possession.

RTC Proceedings on the Petition for Issuance of a Second Owner’s Duplicate

The RTC of Laoag City, Branch 12, after finding sufficient, competent, and credible evidence, rendered an August 28, 2012 Decision ordering the issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540, and, in effect, declaring the lost owner’s duplicate copy null and void.

Petitioner later learned that the issuance had been effected pursuant to Mary’s affidavit of loss. She alleged that only on April 10, 2013, upon inquiry with the Register of Deeds, did she discover that a second owner’s duplicate copy had already been issued in favor of Perlita.

Annulment of Judgment and the Court of Appeals’ Ruling

On May 17, 2013, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of judgment seeking annulment of the RTC August 28, 2012 Decision. She invoked extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction as grounds under Section 2, Rule 47. She essentially argued that the respondents obtained the replacement of the duplicate certificate through fraud and deceit, and she contended that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the first owner’s duplicate copy had not been lost; it allegedly remained in her possession throughout.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on August 15, 2014, holding that a petition under Rule 47 could not be used to impugn the second owner’s duplicate certificate of title issued in the reconstitution proceeding, because such would constitute a collateral attack on the certificate of title, contrary to Section 48 of PD 1529. The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration in its November 14, 2014 Resolution.

Petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals.

The Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner insisted that the RTC was devoid of jurisdiction because the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-34540 existed and was in her possession. She maintained that her Rule 47 petition was not a collateral attack on TCT T-34540 itself. She argued that her real objective was the annulment of the RTC Decision granting the reconstitution and issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy, on the premise that there was no genuine loss to justify reconstitution.

Respondents, on the other hand, argued that petitioner’s certiorari petition was procedurally improper, insisting that the proper remedy would have been a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, because the CA’s August 15, 2014 Decision was rendered on a petition for annulment of judgment filed before it. Respondents also invoked untimeliness and asserted finality of the assailed CA rulings. Substantively, respondents maintained that the Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the annulment petition.

Supreme Court’s Disposition on the Procedural Mode and the Merits

The Court held that petitioner availed herself of the wrong mode of appeal. It recognized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a special civil action that may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court cited jurisprudence that a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals in a petition for annulment of judgment is not entitled to file a Rule 65 petition, but should file an ordinary appeal under Rule 45, raising only questions of law.

The Court nevertheless relaxed the rigid application of procedural rules and gave due course to the petition in the interest of justice. It reasoned that petitioner should have filed under Rule 45 but that it would avoid further prolongation and ensure full ventilation of the merits, given the circumstances of the case.

On the merits, the Court framed the controlling issue as whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s petition for annulment of judgment, particularly on the ground that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. The Court recalled that under Section 2, Rule 47, the only grounds for annulment of judgment were extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. It reiterated that lack of jurisdiction refers to either want of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter. Where there is want of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the judgment is void, and a void judgment has no legal effect, does not divest rights, and cannot acquire finality in the sense that it would produce the effects of a valid judgment.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the Court of Appeals erred when it treated petitioner’s annulment petition as an effort to collaterally dispute the owner’s duplicate certificate of title already issued in the reconstitution proceeding. The Court stressed the doctrinal distinction that reconstitution of a title is the reissuance of a lost duplicate certificate in its original form and condition, and it does not, by itself, determine or resolve ownership of the land.

Jurisdictional Requirement for Reconstitution and Loss of the Owner’s Duplicate

The Court anchored its reasoning on Section 109 of PD 1529, which provides the procedure for notice and replacement of a lost owner’s duplicate certificate. The Court emphasized the statutory premise: before a court could order issuance of a new duplicate, it must be clearly shown that the owner’s duplicate certificate had been lost or destroyed. If the duplicate was not actually lost and remained in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted title was void, and the court that rendered the order had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the judicial proceeding.

In support of this jurisdictional rule, the Court cited cases such as Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and others, which held that if the certificate had not been lost but was in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title was void and the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Court also cited Spouses Paulino v. Court of Appeals, where the Court reiterated that the absence of actual loss meant the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction to order issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate.

The Court held that the crucial fact was whether the alleged lost owner’s duplicate was truly missing. It observed that petitioner alleged in her Rule 47 petition that the owner’s duplicate of TCT T-34540 had never been lost; instead, it had been surrendered by Timoteo and was in her possession since September 2009. The Court noted that the alleged lost TCT was offered in evidence before the Court of Appeals and that private respondents did not controvert its genuineness and authenticity.

Given this evidentiary situation, the Court concluded that the RTC did not have jurisdiction to order issuance of a second owner’s duplicate certificate because the requirement of actual loss was not met. It declared that the RTC Decision was void and could not stand.

Rejection of the Court of Appeals’ Reliance on Sps. Lim

The Court further addressed the Court of Appeals’ reliance on The Heirs of the Late Sps. Luciano P. Lim v. The Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Sps. Lim), which the Court of Appeals had invoked to justify dismissal. The Court held that such reliance was misplaced.

In Sps. Lim, the Court had affirmed dismissal not because of the wrong procedural mode, but because the petitione

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms