Title
Heirs of Spouses Ramirez vs. Abon
Case
G.R. No. 222916
Decision Date
Jul 24, 2019
Heirs of Ramirez contested reconstitution of title due to lack of notice, claiming forgery; SC ruled RTC lacked jurisdiction, annulling judgment for failure to notify successors-in-interest.
reconstitution case
lack of jurisdiction
lack of notification

Case Summary (G.R. No. 222916)

Parties, Property, and Competing Claims over the Land

The OCT No. T-4480 was originally registered in the names of Spouses Ramirez and covered Lot 1748. Petitioners alleged that Angel Abon, father of respondent Abon, requested the RD on May 30, 1978 to issue a new owner’s duplicate of the OCT, relying on a document denominated “Confirmation of Previous Sale (CPS)” through which the spouses Ramirez allegedly sold Lot 1748 to Angel. Using the new owner's duplicate, Angel allegedly segregated a one hundred thirty-five square meter portion, designated Lot 1748-A, and obtained Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-50359 (TCT) covering only that subdivided portion.

Petitioners further stated that in June 2013 they were furnished a copy of the CPS and were informed that respondent Abon would use it to transfer title over the remaining portion of Lot 1748. They then filed a Complaint for Annulment of Confirmation of Previous Sale, Issuance of another Owner’s Duplicate Copy of OCT No. 4480, Damages with Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27. That complaint was dismissed motu proprio for lack of jurisdiction, prompting petitioners to seek certiorari before the CA.

Prior CA Ruling on Petitioners’ Challenge to the CPS

Petitioners filed a certiorari petition before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 131624. The CA, Fourth Division, issued a decision on May 2, 2014 denying the petition for lack of merit. The CA, Special Former 4th Division, later denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on September 29, 2014. The decision and resolution became final and executory on November 1, 2014, as shown by the entry of judgment. Importantly, the dismissal of petitioners’ complaint had been for lack of jurisdiction, and the CA proceedings were thus not portrayed in the record as a definitive adjudication on the veracity and validity of the CPS itself.

Respondent Abon’s Petition for Replacement of the Lost Owner’s Duplicate

While petitioners’ challenge to the CPS was unfolding, respondent Abon filed before the RTC, Branch 28 a petition for replacement of the lost owner’s duplicate, docketed as LRC No. 6847, dated July 5, 2013. The petition alleged that Angel acquired the lot covered by the OCT through the CPS and that the subdivision of one hundred thirty-five square meters was reflected in the issuance of TCT No. T-50359 in Angel’s name. It also asserted that respondent Abon’s mother, Nellie T. Abon, had left for Canada in 2006 and left with him the owner’s duplicate copy of the OCT, which he kept in his cabinet. When she returned in January 2013, she requested him to bring out the owner’s duplicate for purposes of an extrajudicial settlement of Angel’s estate, but he allegedly could not find the duplicate despite diligent search. Respondent Abon executed an Affidavit of Loss and registered the affidavit with the RD.

On October 4, 2013, the RTC, Branch 28, granted the petition and ordered the RD to issue a new owner’s duplicate certificate of OCT No. T-4480. The decision was not appealed and became final and executory on November 19, 2013.

Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47

After respondent Abon’s LRC decision became final, petitioners filed, on December 3, 2013, a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 before the CA, Former Fourteenth Division, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 132961. Petitioners alleged that the CPS did not state the area sold to Angel and that Abon’s claim that his parents owned the entire Lot 1748 was belied by the OCT, which showed the registered owners as the spouses Ramirez. Petitioners also argued that if the intention had been to sell the entire lot, the title should have been fully cancelled and a new one issued instead of annotating the CPS on the OCT while TCT covered only the subdivided portion.

On the jurisdictional dimension, petitioners argued that the RTC, Branch 28 acted with grave abuse and without jurisdiction because respondent Abon allegedly failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirements under RA 26, including the alleged requirement that the registered owner, his assigns, or persons having interest file the petition. They further alleged non-compliance with procedural requirements said to be jurisdictional, namely: proof of publication, proof of posting, the identity of the registered owner, the identification of occupants or persons in possession and adjoining owners and other interested parties, and the date for interested persons to file objections. Petitioners thus contended that they, as heirs and successors of the registered owners, were not included as petitioners nor notified.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

The CA, Former Fourteenth Division dismissed petitioners’ petition for lack of merit, holding that there was no valid ground to annul the RTC, Branch 28, Decision dated October 4, 2013, which had found that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition in LRC No. 6847. The CA’s dispositive portion dismissed the petition. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied in the CA’s Resolution dated February 15, 2016, which precipitated the present Rule 45 review.

Sole Issue before the Supreme Court

Stripped to its core, the Supreme Court was tasked to determine whether the CA erred in denying petitioners’ Rule 47 petition for annulment of the RTC, Branch 28’s final and executory judgment ordering replacement of the lost owner’s duplicate.

Governing Standards under Rule 47 and the Limited Grounds for Annulment

The Supreme Court framed the inquiry around the limited grounds for annulment under Rule 47. It held that annulment of judgment is available only when ordinary remedies such as new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies were no longer available through no fault of the petitioner, and that the remedy is based on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. It also noted the timing rules under Section 3 of Rule 47.

In this case, petitioners’ theory centered on lack of jurisdiction, premised on alleged non-compliance with the notice and hearing requirements in proceedings for replacement of a lost owner’s duplicate certificate.

Which Law Governs: RA 26 or PD 1529

The Court clarified that the correct legal framework depended on the nature of the lost document. It held that the relevant provision was Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529), not RA 26. The Court explained that what had been lost was the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, not the original certificate on file with the RD. It cited jurisprudence holding that Sections 18 and 19 of RA 26 apply only to reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certificates of title on file with the RD, while Section 109 of PD 1529 governs petitions for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title that is lost or destroyed.

Requirements under Section 109 of PD 1529 and Due Notice to Interested Parties

The Court reiterated the requirements for replacement under Section 109 of PD 1529: the registered owner or person in interest must send notice of loss to the RD under oath as soon as loss is discovered; thereafter, a corresponding petition must be filed in court in the original case of registration; the petition must state facts and circumstances under oath; the court may set the petition for hearing after due notice to the RD and other interested parties as shown in the encumbrance memorandum on the original or transfer certificate of title; and after due notice and hearing, the court may direct issuance of a new duplicate containing the required memorandum and entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate.

Applying these requirements, the Court found that respondent Abon complied with aspects of notice and documentation. It was not disputed that respondent Abon executed an Affidavit of Loss dated June 3, 2013, notified the RD, and that the notice’s execution was entered as an encumbrance memorandum entry on the subject title. It was likewise not disputed that copies of the petition and the RTC order dated July 17, 2013 were posted publicly and were furnished to the RD, the Land Registration Authority (LRA), and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. A Notice of Hearing dated August 23, 2013 was also issued by the RTC.

However, the Court found a fatal omission. It was not disputed that the OCT remained registered in the names of the spouses Ramirez, aside from the one hundred thirty-five square meter portion covered by TCT No. T-50359 issued in Angel’s name. Despite this, the Notice of Hearing was not sent to the heirs of the spouses Ramirez. The Court thus treated petitioners as unnotified interested parties in the LRC proceedings.

Who Are “Interested Parties” and Why the Registered Owner Must Be Notified

The Supreme Court held that the heirs of the registered owners should be considered interested parties who must be notified in a petition for replacement of a lost owner’s duplicate filed by another person. It reasoned from Section 41 of PD 1529, which provides that the owner’s duplicate certificate shall be delivered to the registered owner or duly authorized representative. Since the owner’s duplicate is typically possessed by the registered owner, a petition for replacement necessarily affects the registered owner’s ability to account for the duplicate’s whereabouts and to contest the replacement.

The Court rejected a narrow reading that confined notice only to those whose alleged ownership appeared in the memorandum of encumbrances. It emphasized that a registered Torrens title is the best evidence of ownership, and that the registered owner is presumed to be the owner with preferential right over the owner’s duplicate. The Court reasoned that notice to the registered owner prevents fraud and ensures due process.

Distinguishing Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Matas

Respondent Abon invoked

...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