Second Division (G.R. No. 222916, July 24, 2019) : Caguioa, J
Second Division (G.R. No. 222916, July 24, 2019) : Caguioa, J
Second Division (G.R. No. 222916, July 24, 2019) : Caguioa, J
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J:
As narrated by the CA, Former 14th Division in its assailed Decision, and as culled
from the records of the instant case, the essential facts and antecedent proceedings
of the case are as follows:
[The petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez] allege that Original Certificate of Title
No. T-4480[4] (OCT, for brevity) is registered in the names of the late spouses
Gervacio Ramirez and Martina Carbonel [(Sps. Ramirez)] and covers a 1,266-
square meter lot (Lot 1748) located in Barrio Sta. Lucia, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya
[(subject property)]. On May 30, 1978, Angel Abon, the father of [respondent
Abon], requested the [RD] to issue a new owner's duplicate of the OCT on the basis
of a document denominated as "Confirmation of Previous Sale"[5] (CPS, for brevity)
whereby the [Sps. Ramirez] had allegedly sold Lot 1748 to him (Angel). Using the
new owner's duplicate of the OCT, Angel was able to segregate a 135-square meter
portion [(Lot 1748-A)] from Lot 1748 and obtain title thereto-Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-50359[6] (TCT, for brevity). In June 2013, [the petitioners Heirs of the
Sps. Ramirez] were furnished a copy of the CPS. Having been informed that
respondent [Abon] would use the CPS to transfer title to the rest of Lot 1748, [the
petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez] filed a [C]omplaint[7] [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] to have said CPS annulled on the ground of forgery. Unfortunately,
the [Regional Trial Court of Nueva Vizcaya (RTC), Branch 27] dismissed the
complaint motu proprio for lack of jurisdiction. [The petitioners Heirs of the Sps.
Ramirez] filed a certiorari petition[8] [before the CA, Fourth (4th) Division],
docketed as CA G.R. CV No. 131624. [According to the Case Status Inquiry System
of the CA, on May 2, 2014, the CA, 4th Division rendered a Decision[9] denying the
petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' certiorari petition for lack of merit. On
September 29, 2014, the CA, Special Former 4th Division issued a
Resolution[10] denying the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' Motion for
Reconsideration. As indicated by the Entry of Judgment,[11] the Decision and
Resolution of the CA, 4th Division and Special Former 4th Division, respectively in
CA-G.R. SP No. 131624 became final and executory on November 1, 2014.]
Meanwhile, on July 5, 2013, respondent [Abon] filed before the [RTC, Branch 28], a
petition[12] for reconstitution [(Petition for Reconstitution)] of the lost owner's
duplicate of the OCT. [The case was docketed as LRC No. 6847.] Respondent
[Abon] alleged in his petition that his father, Angel Abon, acquired the lot covered
by said OCT under the CPS and [caused the subdivision of 135 square meters of the
subject property, with TCT No. T-50359 covering the said subdivided portion of the
subject property having been issued. Respondent Abon further alleged that his
mother, Nellie T. Abon, left for Canada sometime in 2006 and entrusted to him the
owner's duplicate of OCT No. 4480, which he kept in his cabinet. Respondent Abon
then alleged that when his mother arrived in the Philippines in January 2013, she
requested the former to bring out the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 4480 for
purposes of an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Angel. However, respondent
Abon could not find the said owner's duplicate copy in his cabinets. Respondent
Abon allegedly exerted diligent efforts to look for the owner's duplicate copy to no
avail. Respondent Abon then executed an Affidavit of Loss[13] and had the same
registered with the RD. x x x
The RTC, Branch 28's aforesaid Decision was not subjected to appeal. Hence, as
indicated in the Certificate of Finality[15] dated November 19, 2013, the Decision
dated October 4, 2013 became final and executory.
On December 3, 2013, the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez filed a Petition for
Annulment of Judgment[16]under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the CA,
Former 14th Division. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 132961.]
[The petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez] further allege that the CPS does not
state the area bought by Angel Abon from the spouses Ramirez and respondent
[Abon]'s claim that the lot is owned by his parents is belied by the OCT itself which
shows that the owners thereof are the spouses Ramirez. [The petitioners Heirs of
the Sps. Ramirez] argue that if the intention under the CPS was to transfer the
entire lot to Angel Abon then the title should have been totally cancelled and a new
one issued in lieu thereof; however, the CPS was annotated on the OCT and the
TCT was issued to cover only a 135-square meter portion of the lot.
[The petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez] finally contend that the [RTC, Branch
28] abused its discretion in granting respondent [Abon]'s petition for want of
jurisdiction. Citing Sec. 12 of Republic Act (RA) No. 26 which requires that the
petition for reconstitution shall be filed by the registered owner, his assigns, or any
person having an interest in the property, [the petitioners Heirs of the Sps.
Ramirez] contend that the [H]eirs of [S]pouses Ramirez were neither included as
petitioners nor notified and this shows respondent [Abon]'s illicit desire to
appropriate the entire lot. [The petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez] further allege
that respondent [Abon] did not comply with the jurisdictional requirements of RA 26
thus: 1) proof of publication of the petition; 2) proof of posting of the petition; 3)
name of the registered owner; 4) names of the occupants or persons in possession
of the property; 5) names of the owners of adjoining properties and all other
interested persons; and 6) the date when persons having interest must appear and
file their objections to the petition.[17]
In the assailed Decision, the CA, Former 14th Division denied the petitioners Heirs of
the Sps. Ramirez' Petition for Annulment of Judgment for lack of merit. The
dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:
SO ORDERED.[18]
In sum, the CA, Former 14th Division held that there was no valid ground for the
annulment of the RTC, Branch 28's Decision dated October 4, 2013, finding that
"the RTC-Br. 28 had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition in LRC No.
6748."[19]
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez filed their Motion for
Reconsideration[20] dated September 1, 2015, which was denied by the CA, Former
14th Division in the assailed Resolution.
Respondent Abon filed his Comment[21] dated November 12, 2016, to which the
petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez responded to with their Reply to
Comment[22] dated March 3, 2016.
Issue
Stripped to its core, the sole issue to be decided by the Court in the instant case is
whether the CA, Former 14th Division erred in denying the petitioners Heirs of the
Sps. Ramirez' Petition for Annulment of Judgment.
Upon exhaustive review of the facts and the law surrounding the instant case, the
Court finds the instant Petition meritorious.
It must be emphasized that the central issue in the instant case is whether there is
any ground under Rule 47 to annul the RTC, Branch 28's final and executory
Decision dated October 4, 2013, which ordered the RD to issue a new owner's
duplicate copy of OCT No. 4480 in favor of respondent Abon.
Under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the remedy of annulment of judgment "is
resorted to in cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through
no fault of the petitioner, and is based on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud, and
lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process."[23] According to Section 3 of Rule 47, if
based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its
discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or
estoppel.
In the instant case, the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez maintain that the RTC,
Branch 28 did not acquire jurisdiction over LRC Case No. 6847.
To clarify, in the instant case, what has been lost is the owner's duplicate copy of
the subject OCT, and not the original copy of the OCT on file with the RD. As held
in Billote v. Solis,[25] "[a] reading of the provisions clearly reveals that Sections 18
and 19 of RA 26 applies only in cases of reconstitution of lost or
destroyed original certificates of title on file with the Register of Deeds,
while Section 109 of PD 1529 governs petitions for the issuance of new
owner's duplicatecertificates of title which are lost or destroyed."[26] Hence, the
petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' original position in their Petition for
Annulment of Judgment that RA 26 applies in the instant case, a theory they
entirely abandoned in the instant Petition, is incorrect.
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the
court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new
duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is
issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to
like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as
such for all purposes of this decree.[27]
The requirements for the replacement of lost owner's duplicate certificate of title
may be summarized, thus: a) the registered owner or other person in interest shall
send notice of the loss or destruction of the owner's duplicate certificate of title to
the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss
or destruction is discovered; b) the corresponding petition for the replacement of
the lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate shall then be filed in court and
entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered; c) the
petition shall state under oath the facts and circumstances surrounding such loss or
destruction; and d) the court may set the petition for hearing after due notice to
the Register of Deeds and all other interested parties as shown in the memorandum
of encumbrances noted in the original or transfer certificate of title on file in the
office of the Register of Deeds; and e) after due notice and hearing, the court may
direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate which shall contain a memorandum
of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost or destroyed certificate and shall in all
respects be entitled to the same faith and credit as the original duplicate.[28]
In the instant case, it is not disputed that respondent Abon sent a notice of loss of
the owner's duplicate certificate of the subject OCT to the RD in the form of an
Affidavit of Loss dated June 3, 2013 executed by respondent Abon under oath,
detailing the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss of the owner's duplicate
certificate. With the RD being duly notified of respondent Abon's Affidavit of Loss,
the fact of execution of the said notice was entered into the Memorandum of
Encumbrances[29] of the subject OCT as Entry No. 2013003397.
With respect to the notice and due hearing requirement, it is likewise not disputed
that a copy of respondent Abon's Petition for Reconstitution, together with a copy of
RTC, Branch 28's Order[30] dated July 17, 2013, was publicly posted, as certified by
the RTC's Office of the Clerk of Court in its Certification[31] dated August 23, 2013.
Moreover, it is not disputed that copies of the aforementioned documents were
furnished to the RD, the Land Registration Authority (LRA), and the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor. A Notice of Hearing[32] dated August 23, 2013 was likewise
issued by the RTC, Branch 28.
Therefore, the critical question now redounds to whether the petitioners Heirs of the
Sps. Ramirez, being the successors-in-interest of the registered owners of the
subject property, should be considered interested parties that should have been
notified of the Petition for Reconstitution proceedings.
The registered owner is an interested party in the petition for reconstitution case
because, as held by the Court in Reyes v. Reyes,[33] "the owner of the land in
whose favor and in whose name said land is registered and inscribed in the
certificate of title has a more preferential right to the possession of the
owner's duplicate than one whose name does not appear in the certificate
and has yet to establish his right to the possession thereof."[34]
While it is true that registration does not vest title and it is merely evidence of such
title,[35] a Torrens certificate, as compared to a mere deed evidencing a contract of
sale or any other private document, is still the best evidence of ownership over
registered land.[36] Such title is entitled to respect and great weight until someone
else can show a better right to the lot.[37] The Court has previously held that a
certificate of registration accumulates in one document a precise and correct
statement of the exact status of the fee held by its owner which, in the absence of
fraud, is the evidence of title showing exactly the owner's real interest over the
property covered thereby.[38] Therefore, the person who is registered as the owner
of the property in a certificate of title is presumed to be the owner of such property.
Needless to say, the presumed owner of the property is, at the very least, an
interested party. Since Section 41 of PD 1529 mandates that the owner's duplicate
certificate of title shall be delivered to the registered owner, the latter is presumed
to be in possession thereof. Thus, the registered owner will be in the best position
to account for the whereabouts of the owner's duplicate certificate.
The rationale of requiring the notification of the registered owner in a petition for
the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate of title is not
hard to understand.
With the legal presumption that the registered owner is the owner of the property,
thus affording him preferential right over the owner's duplicate, duly notifying him
would prevent a person who wrongfully purports to be the owner of the property to
commit fraud. It would offer the registered owner sufficient opportunity to contest
the supposed interest of the person filing the petition for reconstitution. The rule on
the mandatory notification of the registered owner in a petition for reconstitution of
a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate filed by another person who is not
the registered owner is to ensure an orderly proceeding and to safeguard the due
process rights of the registered owner. It prevents the commission of fraud.
Therefore, being the registered owners of the subject property, the Sps. Ramirez,
whose rights are now transferred by succession to the petitioners Heirs of the Sps.
Ramirez, should have, at the very least, been given sufficient opportunity to be
heard in the Petition for Reconstitution.
Respondent Abon, in arguing that the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez have no
more interest in the subject property, puts much emphasis in the CPS to show that
the Sps. Ramirez already completely divested their interest in the subject property
when they sold the same to Angel.
This does not mean however that persons who are not registered owners of the
property cannot successfully seek for the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed
owner's duplicate certificate of title. If the court is satisfied that the registered
owner has indeed completely divested his/her interest in the property, that the
requesting party has sufficient interest in the subject property, and that the owner's
duplicate certificate of title is indeed lost or destroyed, then the petition for
reconstitution should be granted in favor of the requesting party having interest in
the subject property.
Be that as it may, in such a situation, if the certificate of title was not yet
transferred in the name of the requesting party and is still registered in the name of
the original owner, owing to the established doctrine that a Torrens certificate is
still the best evidence of ownership over registered land, the original registered
owner, having preferential status over the owner's duplicate, is still considered an
interested party that should be notified in so far as the petition for reconstitution is
concerned. This will ensure that the registered owner will have sufficient
opportunity to contest the claim of the requesting party.
Neither can respondent Abon argue that the final and executory Decision of the CA,
4th Division in CA G.R. CV No. 131624, which affirmed the denial of the petitioners
Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' Complaint for Annulment of the CPS, incontrovertibly and
irrefutably established beyond dispute the transfer of the subject property via a
contract of sale between the Sps. Ramirez and Angel.
To recall, the dismissal of the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' Complaint was
not due to any categorical and definitive finding on the veracity and validity of the
CPS. The dismissal of the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' Complaint was
solely due to lack of jurisdiction. In fact, the dismissal of the petitioners Heirs of the
Sps. Ramirez' Complaint was a motu proprio dismissal.
Further, in his Comment, respondent Abon relies heavily on the case of Office of
the Court Administrator v. Judge Matas[39] which held that the notice requirement
under Section 109 of PD 1529 is sent to the Register of Deeds and only to those
persons who have an interest in the property "as shown in the Memorandum of
encumbrances at the back of the original or transfer certificate of title on file in the
office of the Register of Deeds. From a legal standpoint, there are no other
interested parties who should be notified, except those abovementioned since they
are the only ones who may be deemed to have a claim to the property involved."[40]
It is an opportune time for the Court to clarify its prior holding that only persons
who have an interest in the property as shown in the memorandum of
encumbrances can be considered persons in interest that must be notified in a
petition for reconstitution of a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate of title.
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Matas, the alleged owner of the
subject property therein, i.e., J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises (J.K.
Mercado), was alleging that the respondent Judge therein, i.e., Judge Jesus V.
Matas of the Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao del Norte, Branch 2, acted
without jurisdiction when it failed to notify J.K. Mercado as regards the petition for
the issuance of a new owner's duplicate of the subject certificate of title.
Agreeing with the findings of the investigating Justice therein,[41] the Court agreed
that J.K. Mercado was not an interested party because its claim of ownership was
not indicated whatsoever in the certificate of title. The only piece of evidence
presented by J.K. Mercado was a private Memorandum of Agreement that was
never inscribed in the subject certificate of title and filed with the Register of
Deeds:
The only piece of evidence that would show the alleged ownership of the J.K.
Mercado over the four (4) parcels of land, subject of Misc. Case No. 1626 is the
alleged private Memorandum of Agreement entered on November 19, 1981 by and
between George Mercado and J.K. Mercado. Said agreement was never entered on
the Certificate of Titles in the name of their original/former owners on file with the
Register of Deeds at the time of the filing or pendency of Misc. Case No. 1626. As
such, how can private complainant expect to be notified.[42]
Hence, it is clear from the foregoing that the Court's holding in Office of the Court
Administrator v. Judge Matas should not be understood as excluding as an
interested party the very person or entity whose name is indicated in the OCT or
TCT as the registered owner. Verily, the inscription of the name of the owner on the
OCT or TCT is the proof of the registration of his/her interest in the property. The
Court's holding in Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Matassimply means
that an alleged party-in-interest, whose interest in the property is not registered,
not inscribed on the certificate of title, and is based on a mere private document,
should not be considered an interested party that must be notified in a petition for
reconstitution case.
Stated differently, the actual registered owner appearing on the certificate of title
is always an interested party that must be notified by the court hearing the petition
for reconstitution. Otherwise, such court does not acquire jurisdiction to hear and
try the petition for reconstitution case.
To restate, the instant ruling of the Court does not mean that respondent Abon
cannot successfully seek the reconstitution of the owner's duplicate certificate of
the subject OCT. He can. But the RTC hearing his application must notify the parties
who appear on the OCT to be the registered owners. And if the RTC, after such
notice and hearing, is satisfied that the Sps. Ramirez had truly divested all of their
interest in the subject property, that respondent Abon has sufficiently established
his interest over the subject property, that the owner's duplicate certificate of title
was indeed lost, and that the jurisdictional requirements
under Section 109 of PD 1529 had been sufficiently met, then the Petition for
Reconstitution should be granted in favor of respondent Abon. However, without
properly notifying the estate of the Sps. Ramirez, who continue to be the registered
owners of the subject property, the RTC fails to acquire jurisdiction over the Petition
for Reconstitution.
Therefore, as the RTC, Branch 28 failed to acquire jurisdiction over LRC Case No.
6847 because of its failure to notify the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez, the
latter's Petition for Annulment of Judgment is meritorious.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 29, 2015
and Resolution dated February 15, 2016 rendered by the Court of Appeals, Former
Fourteenth Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 132961 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 28's
Decision dated October 4, 2013 in LRC Case No. 6847 is
hereby ANNULLED without prejudice to the refiling of another petition for
reconstitution of a lost owner's duplicate certificate of title with proper notice to all
interested parties.
SO ORDERED.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a partial petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court seeking to partly reverse and set aside the Decision[1] and
Resolution,[2] dated May 24, 2007 and December 5, 2007, respectively, of the Court
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 85583 which declared the Decision[3] dated
February 24, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in PET. Case No. U-1959 null
and void.
The property subject of the instant petition is a parcel of land consisting of an area
of 6,894 square meters, situated in the Municipality of Urdaneta, Province of
Pangasinan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 15296 issued under
the names of the spouses Hilario Solis and Dorotea Corla,[4] who had begotten three
(3) children, namely, Ludovico Solis, and respondents Imelda Solis and Adelaida
Solis-Dalope.[5] After Hilario's death on November 15, 1955, Dorotea contracted a
subsequent marriage with Segundo Billote, with whom she had two (2) children,
namely, petitioner Josefma C. Billote and William C. Billote.
On the claim that the owner's duplicate copy of the subject property's title was
missing, respondent Imelda filed before the RTC of Urdaneta City on December 16,
2002 a Petition for the Issuance of New Owner's Duplicate Certificate of TCT No.
15296.[6] Among several other documentary evidence, respondent Imelda
submitted a copy of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased
Person with Quitclaim dated July 13, 2002 whereby Dorotea allegedly conveyed her
share in the subject property to respondents Imelda and Adelaida,[7] as well as an
Affidavit of Loss duly notifying the Register of Deeds of the title's loss.[8]
On February 24, 2003, the trial court granted the petition, finding that the
jurisdictional requirements of Section 109[9] of Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 1529 have been duly complied with.[10] Upon receipt of the new owner's
duplicate copy, respondents Imelda and Adelaida registered the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement, pursuant to which TCT No. 15296 was cancelled and a
new one, TCT No. 269811,[11] was issued.[12]
On July 30, 2004, petitioner, through her Attorneys-in-Fact, William Billote and
Segundo Billote, filed before the CA a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment[15] seeking to annul the Decision of the RTC granting respondent Imelda's
Petition for the Issuance of New Owner's Duplicate Certificate of TCT No. 15296.
Petitioner alleged that on July 28, 2001, Dorotea executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale[16] conveying her 1/2 conjugal share in the subject property in favor of
petitioner. She stated that before she left for the United States in the same year,
she and her mother Dorotea entrusted to William the owner's duplicate copy of TCT
No. 15296.[17] Petitioner also alleged that in July 2002, respondents Imelda and
Adelaida asked a certain Atty. Ramon Veloria to assist them in transferring the
entire subject property in their names. Dorotea told them, however, that she had
already sold her conjugal share to petitioner. Despite this, respondents Imelda and
Adelaida nevertheless requested the owner's duplicate copy from William, who
refused on account of lack of any instruction from their mother and the need for the
registration of the Deed of Sale executed in favor of petitioner. In April 2004, upon
hearing that his sister, respondent Imelda, was able to buy a piece of property
notwithstanding her poor financial capacity, William went to Atty. Veloria's office
wherein he discovered that the property in question was the subject of a Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate. William then went to the Register of Deeds and
learned that TCT No. 15296 had already been cancelled despite the fact that the
owner's duplicate copy was in his possession. Thus, petitioner sought the
nullification of the RTC's decision ordering the issuance of the new owner's copy of
title for lack of jurisdiction in view of the fact that the owner's duplicate of title was
not lost, but had all the while been in the possession of her brother, William.
On May 24, 2007, the CA partially granted the petition for annulment of judgment
in the following wise:
When spouses Badar bought subject property, it was already covered by TCT No.
269811 in the names of Imelda and Adelaida. Although the second owner's
duplicate of TCT No. 15296 was void the same having been issued by a court which
did not have jurisdiction to order the issuance of a new owner's copy in lieu of an
owner's duplicate which was not lost but was in the possession of another person,
(Straight Times, Inc. vs. CA, 294 SCRA 714; Easterworld Motor Industries Corp. vs.
Skunac Corp., 478 SCRA 420) and although TCT No. 269811 in the names of
Imelda Solis and Adelaida Dalope was fraudulently secured, such facts cannot
prejudice the right of spouses Victor and Remedios Badar absent any showing that
they had any knowledge or participation in such irregularity. Aforenamed spouses
cannot be obliged to look beyond the vendor's certificate of title which appeared to
be valid on its face and devoid of any annotation of any adverse claim. Spouses
Badar appear to be purchasers in good faith and for value as they bought the
disputed property, without notice that some other person has right or interest over
the same and paid a full price for the same at the time of the purchase or before
they had notice of any claim or interest of some other person therein (Eduarte vs.
Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 391). No valid transfer certificate of title can issue from
a void certificate of title, unless an innocent purchaser for value has intervened
(Pineda vs. CA and Teresita Gonzales, 409 SCRA 438). Established is the rule that
the rights of an innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected
notwithstanding the fraud employed by the sellers in securing their title (Eduarte
vs. CA, supra).
While this Court, therefore, can declare the judgment dated February 24, 2003,
rendered by Branch 47, RTC, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan in PET. Case No. U-1959,
as well as the second owner's duplicate of TCT No. 15296 issued pursuant thereto
null and void for having been issued without jurisdiction, the same cannot be done
relative to TCT No. 274696 issued to the spouses Victor and Remedios Badar,
absent any showing that they purchased the property covered thereby with
knowledge or privity as to any irregularity or fraud employed by the vendors in
securing their title.
This Court cannot declare nullity of TCT No. 274696 in the names of spouses Victor
and Remedios Badar.
SO ORDERED.[18]
When the appellate court denied petitioner's Partial Motion for Reconsideration,
petitioner filed the instant Partial Petition for Review on Certiorari on January 31,
2008, invoking the following issues:
I.
II.
Moreover, granting that the CA did not have the authority to declare the Spouses
Badar's title null and void, petitioner contends that the appellate court should have
remanded the issue on whether said spouses were innocent purchasers for value to
the RTC, wherein the issue of ownership over the subject property is being
ventilated in Civil Case No. U-8088. According to petitioner, the Spouses Badar are
not innocent purchasers for value considering that they were able to acquire the
subject property from respondents Imelda and Adelaida only after they could not
reach the price originally offered to them by petitioner. Clearly, therefore, the
Spouses Badar had knowledge of petitioner's right to the property. In view of this
alleged bad faith on the part of the spouses, petitioner contends that the appellate
court should have ordered further proceedings to determine the veracity of the
parties' claims to the subject property.
For their part, respondent Spouses Badar essentially claim that they are innocent
purchasers for value who relied on the correctness of the certificate of title
presented to them by respondents Imelda and Adelaida. Thus, the appellate court
did not err when it refused to declare the nullity of the title issued to them for there
is no showing that they purchased the property covered thereby with knowledge or
privity as to any fraud employed by respondents Imelda and Adelaida in securing
their title.
At the outset, it must be noted that the applicable law in this case is not Sections
18 and 19 of RA No. 26 but Section 109of PD No. 1529. A reading of the provisions
clearly reveals that Sections 18 and 19 of RA No. 26 applies only in cases of
reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certificates of title on file with the
Register of Deeds, while Section 109 of PDNo. 1529 governs petitions for the
issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title which are lost or destroyed.[24]
This does not mean, however, that this Court can take cognizance of respondents'
assertion that since the trial court applied the correct procedure imposed by law
herein, the trial court necessarily had jurisdiction to order the issuance of the
second owner's duplicate copy of title.
In this case, the appellate court categorically found that the owner's duplicate of
TCT No. 15296 was not, in fact, lost but was in the possession of William Billote all
along.[30] While respondents Imelda and Adelaida, in their Comment, claimed they
did not know the whereabouts of the duplicate, and asserted that William even
admitted that he did not know where the same is, they never refuted such finding
of the CA. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to deviate from the same.
Accordingly, since the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but
was in the possession of William, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title. Hence, the
CA was correct in declaring the decision of the RTC as well as the second owner's
duplicate of title issued pursuant thereto a nullity. It is, therefore, the fact of the
loss or existence of the owner's duplicate certificate, and not whether the process
prescribed by applicable law was successfully complied with, that determines the
presence or lack of jurisdiction of the trial court.
Anent the findings of the CA, however, that since the subject property had already
passed into the hands of spouses Badar, innocent purchasers for value, having
bought the disputed property without notice that some other person has right or
interest over the same, the title issued to them remains valid and cannot be
nullified, the same cannot be conclusively affirmed. The appellate court ruled as
follows:
The property covered by said title, however, passed into the hands of
innocent purchasers for value in the persons of spouses Victor and
Remedios Badar, to whom TCT No. 274696 had already been issued.
The CA herein was, therefore, limited only to the determination of whether the trial
court had jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy
of a certificate of title in lieu of the one allegedly lost. The only fact that had to be
established was whether or not the original owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of
title is still in existence.[34]Thus, the dispute regarding the issue of ownership over
the subject property as well as whether the Spouses Badar are, in fact, purchasers
in good faith and for value will have to be threshed out in a more appropriate
proceeding, specifically in Civil Case No. U-8088, where the trial court will conduct a
full-blown hearing with the parties presenting their respective evidence to prove
ownership over the subject realty,[35] and not in an action for the issuance of the
lost owner's duplicate certificate of title, nor in a proceeding to annul the certificate
issued in consequence thereof.[36]
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 205004, August 17, 2016 ]
SPOUSES ERNESTO IBIAS, SR. AND GONIGONDA IBIAS,
PETITIONERS, VS. BENITA PEREZ MACABEO, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
The RTC ruled in favor of respondent Benita Perez Macabeo (Benita) and against
petitioners Spouses Ernesto Ibias, Sr. (Ernesto) and Gonigonda Ibias (collectively,
Spouses Ibias) and ordered the Register of Deeds of Manila to cancel Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 245124 under the name of the Spouses Ibias and
reinstate TCT No. 24605.
The Facts
The CA recited the facts as follows:
[Benita] averred that defendant-appellant Ernesto made it appear that the title was
lost or misplaced while in the possession of the registered owners when in truth and
in fact, he knew fully well that said title was in the possession of [Benita]. Proof of
such knowledge was shown by his letter dated 23 July 1999 where he asked
[Benita] for TCT No. 24605, which was in the latter's possession. At the time
defendant-appellant Ernesto executed the Affidavit of Loss and filed his petition for
reconstitution, he knew that the title was intact and in the possession of [Benita].
The issuance of the reconstituted title in favor of [the Spouses Ibias] thus deprived
[Benita] and her other siblings of their right over the subject property.
The RTC stated that Ernesto's assertions did not coincide with its findings. When
Ernesto filed a petition for reconstitution on 19 August 1999, Ernesto claimed that
the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 24605 was lost. However, Ernesto knew that the
title was in Benita's possession. Ernesto himself wrote a letter dated 23 July 1999
to Benita to ask for the title. Prior to this, Ernesto borrowed the title from Benita in
1996 for the connection of his water system to NAWASA.
Ernesto also falsely declared in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with
Waiver of Rights that he and his brother Rodolfo Ibias are the only surviving heirs
of Albina Natividad. Ernesto and Rodolfo actually have four older half-sisters with
their mother Albina: Avelina, Abuendia, Seferiana, and Benita. To the RTC, it is
clear that Ernesto was able to procure the new title in his name through fraudulent
means.
SO ORDERED.[6]
The Spouses Ibias filed a notice of appeal[7] on 19 July 2006. The RTC released an
Order[8] elevating the complete records of the case on 26 July 2006.
The CA dismissed the Spouses Ibias' appeal and affirmed the decision of the RTC.
The CA affirmed, the RTC's findings of fact. Ernesto knew that TCT No. 24605 was
with Benita for safekeeping. Ernesto's 23 July 1999 letter to Benita categorically
stated that he asked for TCT No. 24605 and acknowledged that the TCT was in her
possession. Ernesto wrote:
Sa kadahilanang nabanggit sa itaas ako at ang aking kapatid na si RODOLFO IBIAS
ay tuwiran hinihingi sa iyo ang titulo ng lupa na may No. 24605 na nasa iyong
pag-iingat. x x x[9]
In her letter to Ernesto dated 16 August 1999, Benita explained that the money for
the purchase of the land came from the GSIS death benefit of her sister Abuendia
Natividad Perez (Abuendia). It was Abuendia's wish to put the title of the property
in their mother's name. The name of Ernesto's father, Marcelo, was in TCT No.
24605 only because he was married to Albina. Marcelo had no capacity to buy the
property. The PI 1,000 was for the purpose of including the names of their siblings
Rodolfo Ibias and Avelina Perez. The title was in Benita's possession only because
Albina entrusted it to her. Benita wrote:
Para sa kaalam [sic] mo, totoong matagal nang nasa pag-iingat ko ang kopya ng
titulo ng ating lupa. Hindi ko iyon tinatanggi. Ito'y nasa akin hindi dahil sa gusto ko
itong kamkamin (katulad ng gusto mo ngayong palabasin) kundi dahil sa ito'y
inihabilin sa akin ng ating namatay na inang si ALBINA NATIVIDAD y PEREZ at ito'y
alam mo, aminin mo man o hindi.[10]
The Spouses Ibias did not dispute these letters. The correspondence shows that
Ernesto knew that Benita had the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 24605 in her
possession prior to the filing of the present case. The CA identified the strained
relations between the parties as the reason why Ernesto could not compel Benita to
turn over the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 24605 to him. The CA concluded that
because the Spouses Ibias could not force Benita to give them the title, Ernesto
executed an Affidavit of Loss so as to pull one over on Benita. The tenor of the
correspondence belies the Spouses Ibias' claim of good faith when the Affidavit of
Loss was executed.
Ernesto falsely stated in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver
of Rights that he and his brother Rodolfo are the only surviving heirs of Albina and
Marcelo. However, in his 23 July 1999 letter, as well as in his pleadings, Ernesto
asserted that he and Benita have the same mother.
Ernesto also impliedly recognized Benita's right over the property when he claimed
to have given her PI 1,000 as her supposed share in the property.
Both Benita's and Ernesto's witnesses testified that Marcelo had no resources to
purchase the land. Flordeliza Natividad, Benita's witness, testified that Abuendia
was the breadwinner of the family and purchased the land on installment. When
Abuendia passed away, her family used her death benefits to make full payment for
the land. Pedro Mercado, Ernesto's witness, testified that Marcelo had not been
working since 1949. Ernesto did not present any evidence to show that Marcelo had
the resources to buy the land.
The CA summarized its findings as follows:
In view of the above documentary and testimonial evidence, the court a quo was
correct in canceling TCT No. 245124 and reinstating TCT No. 24605. There is
preponderance of evidence to prove that [the Spouses Ibias] knew for a fact that
TCT No. 24605 was not lost, but in the possession of [Benita]. There is also clear
and convincing evidence that [the Spouses Ibias] committed fraud or fraudulent
acts in order to obtain the reconstituted title. By omitting material facts and
perpetrating untruths in the affidavit of loss, petition for reconstitution, and deed of
extrajudicial settlement, [the Spouses Ibias] were issued TCT No. 245124 to the
damage and prejudice of [Benita] and the other legal heirs of Albina Natividad.[11]
The Spouses Ibias filed their Motion for Reconsideration[12] on 19 June
The Spouses Ibias filed the present petition for review on 1 February 2013, Benita
filed her comment on 2 May 2013. On 17 July 2013, this Court required the
Spouses Ibias to file a reply to the comment within 10 days from notice. This period
expired on 27 September 2013.[15] On 11 June
2014, this Court issued another Resolution denying the Spouses Ibias' petition for
failure to comply with our lawful order without any valid cause. On 26 August 2014,
the Spouses Ibias filed a motion for reconsideration of our 11 June 2014 Resolution.
We granted the Spouses Ibias' motion in a Resolution dated 1 October 2014. The
Spouses Ibias filed a manifestation stating that they reiterate the contents and
allegations in their petition and adopt the same as their reply.
The Issue
The petition has no merit. The RTC and CA were correct in cancelling TCT No.
245124 and reinstating TCT No. 24605.
Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.[18] described reconstitution, thus:
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court
may, after-notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate
certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place
of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and
credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all
purposes of this decree.
Section 109 applies only if the owner's duplicate certificate is indeed lost or
destroyed. If a certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession
of another person, then the reconstituted title is void and the court that rendered
the decision had no jurisdiction.[19] Consequently, the decision may be attacked any
time.[20] Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6732, which amended Section 19 of
RANo. 26,[21] provides:
SEC. 19. If the certificate of title considered lost or destroyed, and subsequently
found or recovered, is not in the name of the same person in whose favor the
reconstituted certificate of title has been issued, the Register of Deeds or the party
concerned should bring the matter to the attention of the proper Regional Trial
Court, which, after due notice and hearing, shall order the cancellation of the
reconstituted certificate of title and render, with respect to the memoranda of new
liens and encumbrances, if any, made in the reconstituted certificate of title, after
its reconstitution, such judgment as justice and equity may require: Provided,
however, That if the reconstituted certificate of title has been cancelled by virtue of
any deed or instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, or by an order of the
court, and a new certificate of title has been issued, the procedure prescribed
above, with respect to the memorandum of new liens and encumbrances made on
the reconstituted certificate of title, after its reconstitution, shall be followed with
respect to the new certificate of title, and to such new liens and encumbrances, if
any, as may have been on the latter, after the issuance thereof.
Section 11 of RA No. 6732 further provides that "[a] reconstituted title obtained by
means of fraud, deceit or other machination is void ab initio as against the party
obtaining the same and all persons having knowledge thereof."
In the present case, the allegedly lost owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 24605 was
in the possession of Benita. The lost TCT was offered in evidence during the trial.
[22]
The Spouses Ibias did not contest the genuineness and authenticity of said TCT.
The Spouses Ibias only questioned the submission of a photocopy of the TCT, but
the trial court, after hearing the arguments of both parties, admitted the photocopy
as part of the evidence presented by Benita. There is no reason to justify the
issuance of a reconstituted title in the name of Spouses Ibias; hence, there is no
error in the cancellation of the same reconstituted title.
Ernesto claimed that he believed that the original owner's duplicate copy of TCT No.
24605 was lost after he asked Benita for it then she failed to show it to him.
Ernesto chose to omit facts and to avail of Section 109 as remedy instead
of Section 107. Section 107 of PD 1529 reads:
Section 107. Surrender of withhold duplicate certificates. - Where it is necessary to
issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests
the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary
instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to
surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest may file a
petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. The
court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person withholding the
duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate
or memorandum upon such surrender. If the person withholding the duplicate
certificate is not amenable to the process of the court, or if not any reason the
outstanding owner's duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order
the annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu
thereof. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a
memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the rulings of the trial and appellate courts
which cancelled TCT No. 245124 and reinstated TCT No. 24605.
SO ORDERED.