Title
Spouses Alcazar vs. Arante
Case
G.R. No. 177042
Decision Date
Dec 10, 2012
Crisanto Alcazar sought reconstitution of a lost TCT, claiming sole heirship. Evelyn Arante contested, proving the title was collateral for a loan. SC ruled reconstitution invalid, upheld Arante’s possession, and awarded damages for Alcazar’s fraud.
jurisdiction
validity of reconstituted certificate
affidavit of loss

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177042)

Factual Background

Alcazar alleged that he was the sole heir of his deceased parents and that the property covered by TCT No. 169526 descended to him. He averred that the owner's duplicate of the title was lost in April 2003 after he entrusted it to certain persons who offered assistance at the Land Registration Office and thereafter failed to return the document. Alcazar filed an affidavit of loss with the Register of Deeds of Pasig on April 28, 2003 and sought judicial reconstitution under Section 109, Presidential Decree No. 1529. Respondent asserted that she had lent PHP 350,000 to petitioners on April 4, 2003, that petitioners executed a real estate mortgage (REM) over the lot covered by TCT No. 169526, and that Alcazar personally delivered to respondent the original owner's duplicate of the said TCT as security for the loan.

Trial Court Proceedings

Acting on Alcazar's petition for reconstitution, the RTC set the case for hearing, required statutory posting, and furnished copies of the petition to the Office of the Solicitor General, the Pasig City Register of Deeds, and the Pasig City Prosecutor. No public respondent appeared, and upon Alcazar's motion the RTC allowed ex parte presentation of evidence. The RTC issued a Decision on January 6, 2004 declaring the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 169526 null and void and directing the Register of Deeds of Pasig City to issue a new owner's duplicate in lieu of the lost certificate. The RTC's decision became final and executory on February 5, 2004.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

Respondent filed with the CA a petition for annulment of the RTC's final decision on February 8, 2005, contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the owner's duplicate was not lost but remained in her possession. Respondent alleged that she had received the genuine duplicate as mortgage security and later discovered that Alcazar had filed an affidavit of loss and obtained judicial reconstitution. Petitioners denied execution of the mortgage and alleged the deed was forged. The CA conducted pretrial and received memoranda before promulgating its judgment.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA found that the original owner's duplicate of TCT No. 169526 existed and was in the possession of respondent, and that petitioners had admitted entrusting the title to respondent. The CA held that the RTC, sitting as a land registration court, lacked jurisdiction to issue a reconstituted title when the original was not lost but held by another person. The CA annulled and set aside the RTC decision. The CA reinstated the original duplicate in respondent's custody and declared void the reconstituted title TCT No. PT-125372. The CA also awarded moral damages of PHP 30,000, exemplary damages of PHP 20,000, attorney's fees of PHP 20,000, and costs in favor of respondent, finding petitioner’s conduct to have caused mental anguish, besmirched reputation, and compelled respondent to retain counsel.

Issues Presented on Review

Petitioners framed their assignments of error to challenge factual findings and legal conclusions of the CA, contending that: the CA erred in crediting respondent’s version; the CA erred in ruling that TCT No. 169526 was not lost; Section 109, P.D. No. 1529 applied to their case; the RTC had jurisdiction to order issuance of TCT No. PT-125372; and the CA erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

Standards of Review and Scope of the Supreme Court's Review

The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition under Rule 45, Rules of Court raises questions of law only; findings of fact of the CA are generally conclusive and will not be reexamined except under enumerated exceptions such as when findings are grounded on conjecture, manifestly mistaken, or when grave abuse of discretion exists. The Court found none of those exceptions present in this appeal and therefore deferred to the CA's factual findings.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Evidentiary and Jurisdictional Matters

The Court observed that petitioners bore the burden of proving their allegations of forgery and fraudulent deprivation of the title. The Court emphasized the presumption of regularity attached to notarized documents and held that petitioners failed to produce clear, strong, and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of due execution of the mortgage or to establish forgery. The Court agreed with the CA that respondent had sufficiently proven possession of the genuine owner's duplicate and that petitioners admitted entrusting the title to respondent. On jurisdiction, the Court applied established precedent holding that reconstitution under Section 109, P.D. No. 1529 is proper only when the duplicate certificate is truly lost or destroyed; if the duplicate is in the possession of another person, the court that issued a reconstituted title lacked jurisdiction and the reconstituted certificate is void. The Court therefore endorsed the CA's annulment of the RTC decision on jurisdictional grounds.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Owne

...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