G.R. No. 212598 - Gaw Chin Ty vs. Chua

Case Summary (G.R. No. 212598)

Factual Background and Litigation History

Spouses Gaw Chin Ty and Chua Giok See purchased a parcel of land registered under TCT No. 420866. Customarily, the title was registered in the name of their firstborn son, respondent Antonio Gaw Chua, but the original owner’s duplicate copy of the title was entrusted to their second eldest son, petitioner Vicente Gaw Chua, to safeguard the rights of other children. Alleging that Antonio lost the original owner’s duplicate, he successfully petitioned the RTC for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate. This resulted in the Registry of Deeds issuing the new duplicate in Antonio’s name.

Subsequently, the petitioners (mother and siblings) filed a Notice of Adverse Claim against the new owner’s duplicate. Antonio then initiated various lawsuits, including a complaint for physical injury and a petition to cancel the adverse claim, which culminated in failed mediation attempts. The petitioners then filed a suit seeking annulment of the new owner’s duplicate title, alleging that the original duplicate was not lost but possessed by Vicente, and that Antonio held the title merely in trust according to familial custom.

Procedural Posture and Trial Court Findings

During pre-trial, the petitioners presented the original owner’s duplicate title which Antonio acknowledged but claimed was spurious. The RTC allowed Antonio to rebut the presumption of regularity attaching to the original owner’s duplicate. However, Antonio failed to produce evidence proving the document's alleged falsity. Consequently, the RTC granted the petition to annul the new owner’s duplicate and declared it null and void, also denying Antonio’s motion for reconsideration.

Court of Appeals' Reversal

The CA reversed the RTC decision, dismissing the petition without prejudice due to the petitioners’ failure to comply with the condition precedent under Article 151 of the Family Code—specifically, failure to allege or demonstrate earnest efforts toward family compromise before filing the suit. The CA treated this failure as a jurisdictional defect, thus warranting dismissal. The CA also denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

Whether failure to allege or comply with the condition precedent under Article 151 of the Family Code mandates dismissal of the petition to annul the new owner’s duplicate title.
Whether the issue of the validity of a new owner’s duplicate title, purportedly issued notwithstanding the existence of the original owner’s duplicate, can be the subject of compromise among family members.

Analysis of the Condition Precedent under Article 151 of the Family Code

Article 151 prohibits suits "between members of the same family" from prospering unless the petition shows earnest efforts toward compromise have been made and failed. However, exceptions exist for cases not subject to compromise as per the New Civil Code (Article 2035). The Supreme Court clarified that the validity of a reconstituted or new owner’s duplicate title, if the original was not truly lost or destroyed, is not a subject of compromise because it implicates public interest and the jurisdiction of the RTC.

The Court further distinguished between the petitioners’ failure to allege compliance and failure to actually comply with the condition precedent, emphasizing that mere omission of allegation does not automatically warrant dismissal unless there is an actual failure of compliance. In this case, the petitioners had attempted resolution through court-annexed mediation in a related case and barangay conciliation proceedings, though these were found insufficient for purposes of Article 151 compliance.

Jurisdictional Aspect and the Torrens System

The issuance of a new or reconstituted owner’s duplicate certificate is governed by Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The statute requires the owner’s duplicate to be truly lost or destroyed before a new duplicate may be validly issued by the court. Jurisprudence holds that if the original owner’s duplicate is not lost or destroyed but merely withheld by another, the court that issued the new duplicate lacked jurisdiction, rendering the new duplicate null and void from inception.

The Court underscored the importance of preserving the integrity and certainty of the Torrens title system, which must prevent the coexistence of two conflicting certificates of title, as it jeopardizes public faith and disrupts market security.

Ruling on the Evidentiary Issues

During pre-trial and trial, the petitioners presented the original owner’s duplicate certificate, which Antonio acknowledged but challenged as spurious. The burden was on Antonio to prove the spuriousness of the document. After several opportunities, he failed to meet this burden. The RTC correctly accorded presumption of regularity to the original owner’s duplicate and consequently declared the recently issued new owner’s duplicate null and void due to lack of jurisdiction in its issuance.

Supreme Court’s Holding and Final Disposition

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition to annul the new owner’s duplicate title must not be dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with Article 151 because the validity of the title is not susceptible to family compromise. The court held that failure to allege earnest efforts at compromise or failure to comply with the condition precedent is not jurisdictional and should not bar the petition in cases involving issues

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 212598)

Background and Factual Antecedents

Spouses Gaw Chin Ty and Chua Giok See purchased a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 420866.
By customary practice among Filipino-Chinese families, the spouses registered the property in the name of their first-born son, respondent Antonio Gaw Chua.
To safeguard the interests of their other children, the spouses entrusted the original owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 420866 to their second eldest son, petitioner Vicente Gaw Chua.
Antonio alleged loss of the original owner’s duplicate copy and filed a verified petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for issuance of a new/reconstituted owner’s duplicate certificate.
On August 15, 2000, RTC granted Antonio’s petition, declared the original owner’s duplicate null and void, and the Registry of Deeds (RD) issued a new owner’s duplicate certificate in Antonio’s name.
Subsequently, on August 27, 2001, Gaw Chin Ty and her children (petitioners) filed a Notice of Adverse Claim on TCT No. 420866, recorded as Entry No. 45910.
Antonio and Vicente had a dispute leading to a complaint of physical injury filed by Antonio against Vicente in 2009; barangay conciliation failed.
Antonio filed a petition to cancel the adverse claim, and the RTC ordered mediation, which was unsuccessful.
In September 2009, petitioners filed a petition to annul the new owner’s duplicate copy on the ground that the original was not lost but retained by Vicente, and Antonio was aware of this fact.
Petitioners asserted the land was registered in Antonio’s name merely in trust for the family under customary practice.

Procedural History

During RTC pre-trial, Vicente tendered the original owner’s duplicate copy; Antonio acknowledged its existence but claimed it was spurious.
RTC presumed regularity in issuance of the owner’s duplicate certificate and required Antonio to prove the alleged spuriousness.
Antonio failed to present evidence rebutting the presumption.
On June 14, 2012, RTC granted the petition to annul the new owner’s duplicate, declaring it null and void.
Antonio’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision on September 27, 2013, citing failure to comply with procedural prerequisites, specifically the condition precedent under Article 151 of the Family Code for family disputes.
CA dismissed petition without prejudice.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

Whether the petition to annul the new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 420866 should be dismissed for failure to allege or comply with a condition precedent for filing the petition.
Whether the issue of coexistence of a new owner’s duplicate with a valid existing original owner’s duplicate can be subject to compromise under Article 151 of the Family Code.

Arguments of Petitioners

Mere failure to allege compliance with the condition precedent for annulment petition is not ground for dismissal; only actual failure to comply is.
Failure to comply with the condition precedent is procedural, not jurisdictional, thus should not bar substantive resolution.
Compliance with the condition precedent was achieved through (i) court-annexed mediation in the LRC case, and (ii) barangay conciliation in the related physical injury complaint, where the title issue was raised.
The new owner’s duplicate cannot va