Case Summary (G.R. No. 220940)
Factual Background
Petitioner Sebastian purchased the subject lot from Nelson Cruz through a deed of absolute sale executed in November 2009, with Nelson acting through his attorney-in-fact, Lamberto P. Cruz, his father. Upon payment of the purchase price, Lamberto delivered possession of the property, including the owner’s duplicate copy of the original certificate of title (OCT No. P-41566), a general power of attorney, and documents related to tax declaration. Sebastian paid the capital gains tax and other fees to facilitate the transfer of the title to her name. Upon presenting the documents to the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan, she was directed to procure a Special Power of Attorney from the Spouses Cruz to validate Lamberto's authority to sell. Despite promises, the Spouses Cruz did not execute such a document, urging Sebastian to annotate an adverse claim over the property to protect her interest.
Later, Sebastian discovered that Nelson had executed an affidavit attesting to the loss of the owner’s duplicate copy of the OCT and that the Spouses Cruz initiated a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen for the issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy. The RTC granted this petition on March 27, 2014. Sebastian filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing lack of jurisdiction, as the owner’s duplicate copy was never lost but was in her possession.
Procedural History
The CA dismissed Sebastian’s petition for annulment on the grounds that the RTC acquired jurisdiction by complying with procedural requirements, such as publication and notice of hearing, which constituted constructive notice to Sebastian, thereby obviating the need for personal notice. Sebastian’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Consequently, she elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
Legal Issue
Whether the CA correctly dismissed Sebastian’s petition for annulment of judgment for purported lack of jurisdiction of the RTC to entertain the petition for issuance of a new title covering the subject property.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Jurisdiction and Grounds for Annulment of Judgment
Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, annulment of judgment is only warranted on grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction may be over the person or over the subject matter; absence of either renders the judgment null and void, i.e., it is a legal nullity that may be annulled.
The issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter is critical here due to the nature of judicial reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens titles, governed by Republic Act No. 26 (RA 26). Under Section 15 of RA 26, reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate of title is only permissible after the court hears and finds:
- The certificate of title was genuinely lost or destroyed;
- Documents presented justify reconstitution;
- The petitioner is the registered owner or has interest in the property;
- The certificate was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed; and
- The property description corresponds substantially with that in the lost or destroyed title.
Reconstitution aims to restore the original certificate to its exact prior form. The crucial prerequisite is the actual loss or destruction of the owner’s duplicate copy of the title, as it is a condition sine qua non for jurisdiction of the court in reconstitution proceedings.
Binding Precedents Regarding Jurisdiction in Reconstitution Cases
In analogous cases, including Spouses Paulino v. Court of Appeals and other Supreme Court rulings, the Court affirmed that if the original duplicate certificate of title is not lost but is simply in the possession of another person, the RTC lacks jurisdiction, and any order reconstituting the title is void. This is because the Torrens system prohibits the issuance of a second title unless the original is truly lost or destroyed. This void judgment cannot divest rights nor constitute a bar under the doctrine of res judicata, and the proper remedy is to challenge the validity of the existing title in an appropriate proceeding.
Court’s Findings on the Present Case
Sebastian’s allegation that the true owner’s duplicate copy was never lost and that it was in her possession contradicts the petition of the Spouses Cruz for judicial reconstitution. Should this factual assertion be proven, the RTC would have lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the title reconstitution case, rendering its decision null and void.
The Supreme Court found prima facie merit in Sebastian’s petition on this jurisdictional ground. Accordingly, the CA committed legal error when it dismissed the petition outright without complying with the procedural mandates of Rule 47, which require that when prima facie merit exists, the petition must be given due course and summons issued to respondents.
Supreme Court’s Disposition and Directives
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed, and set aside the CA’s resolutions that dismi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 220940)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Joy Vanessa M. Sebastian filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to annul the March 27, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69, in LRC Case No. 421.
- The subject property involves a 40,835-square meter parcel of land located in Barangay Bogtong-Bolo, Mangatarem, Pangasinan, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT No.) P-41566, registered in the name of respondent Nelson C. Cruz.
- In November 2009, Nelson, through his father and attorney-in-fact, Lamberto P. Cruz, sold the subject land to Sebastian evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale; possession and the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. P-41566 were surrendered to petitioner alongside related documents, including a General Power of Attorney, Tax Declaration, and Property Index numbers.
- Sebastian complied with tax obligations including capital gains tax payment to facilitate the transfer of title to her name.
- The Register of Deeds (RD) for Pangasinan demanded a Special Power of Attorney from Spouses Cruz authorizing Lamberto to sell the land, which was not provided, prompting Sebastian to annotate an adverse claim on the title in August 2011 to protect her rights.
- Upon inquiry in July 2014 regarding the title status, Sebastian discovered:
(a) Nelson had executed an Affidavit of Loss claiming loss of the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. P-41566;
(b) Spouses Cruz filed a petition before RTC for issuance of a second owner's copy of said OCT, docketed as LRC Case No. 421; and
(c) On March 27, 2014, the RTC issued a Decision granting the petition for reconstitution of the title in their names. - Sebastian claimed the RTC lacked jurisdiction since the owner’s duplicate copy was not lost but was in her possession; hence, the reconstitution petition was invalid.
Court of Appeals' Ruling
- The CA dismissed Sebastian's petition outright in its March 13, 2015 Resolution, holding that the RTC obtained jurisdiction, having complied with publication and notice requirements, which constituted constructive notice to all parties.
- Personal notice to Sebastian was deemed unnecessary.
- Sebastion’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on October 9, 2015.
- The CA thus refused to annul the RTC Decision or entertain Sebastian’s jurisdictional challenge.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA correctly denied due course and