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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-1210)

Background Facts

In 1978, a document called the "Confirmation of Previous Sale" (CPS) was presented by Angel Abon, father of respondent Joey Abon, to the Register of Deeds, claiming a sale of the lot from the spouses Ramirez to him. Subsequently, a portion of the lot was segregated and titled separately as Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-50359. In June 2013, the petitioners discovered the CPS and initiated legal action to annul it, asserting that it was a result of forgery. This complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nueva Vizcaya.

Procedural History

Following the dismissal, the petitioners pursued a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals, which was ultimately denied for lack of merit. Concurrently, on July 5, 2013, Joey Abon filed a petition for reconstitution of the lost owner's duplicate of OCT No. 4480, claiming that the original has been lost. The RTC granted this petition on October 4, 2013, which subsequently became final and executory.

Arguments of the Petitioners

The petitioners argue the CPS does not specify the area sold and that the deeds evidence indicating ownership by the spouses Ramirez contradicts the claim of ownership made by Abon. They contend that the RTC lacked jurisdiction in granting the reconstitution because they, as the registered owners, were not notified of the proceedings, violating procedural safeguards designed to protect their interests.

Decision by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals found no merit in the petitioners' claims and upheld the RTC's decision, resulting in the dismissal of their Petition for Annulment of Judgment. Consequently, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied.

Core Legal Issue

The principal legal issue before the Supreme Court is whether the Court of Appeals erred in its ruling by failing to acknowledge that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution due to the lack of notice to the petitioners, who have a vested interest in the property as heirs to the registered owners.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court determined that the petitioners' claim for annulment is valid. The Court emphasized that for a petition for reconstitution of a lost owner's duplicate to proceed, all interested parties—including the designated heirs of the registered owner—must be duly notified. The Court recognized that the petitioners, as heirs to the spouses Ramirez, retained their interest in the property and should have been afforded an opportunity to be heard.

Relevant Laws

The Court highlighted that Section 109 of Preside

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.