CD-Feliciano vs. Zaldivar

Feliciano vs.
Zaldivar
G.R. No. 162593; September 26, 2006
“Notice and Replacement of Lost Duplicate Certificate”
FACTS:
Remegia Y. Feliciano filed against the spouses Aurelio and Luz Zaldivar a complaint for
declaration of nullity of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-17993 and reconveyance of the
property covered therein consisting of 243 square meters of lot situated in Cagayan de Oro City.
The said title is registered in the name of Aurelio Zaldivar.
In her complaint, Remegia alleged that she was the registered owner of a parcel of land
situated in the District of Lapasan in Cagayan de Oro City with an area of 444 square meters,
covered by TCT No. T-8502. Sometime in 1974, Aurelio, allegedly through fraud, was able to
obtain TCT No. T-17993 covering the 243-sq-m portion of Remegia’s lot as described in her TCT
No. T-8502.
According to Remegia, the 243-sq-m portion (subject lot) was originally leased from her
by Pio Dalman, Aurelio’s father-in-law. She further alleged that she was going to mortgage the
subject lot to Ignacio Gil, which, however, did not push through because Gil took back the money
without returning the receipt she had signed as evidence of the supposed mortgage contract.
Thereafter, in 1974, Aurelio filed with the then Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental a
petition for partial cancellation of TCT No. T-8502. It was allegedly made to appear therein that
Aurelio and his spouse Luz acquired the subject lot from Dalman who, in turn, purchased it from
Gil. The petition was granted and TCT No. T-17993 was issued in Aurelio’s name.
Remegia denied that she sold the subject lot either to Gil or Dalman. She likewise
impugned as falsified the joint affidavit of confirmation of sale that she and her uncle, Narciso
Labuntog, purportedly executed before a notary public, where Remegia appears to have
confirmed the sale of the subject property to Gil. She alleged that she never parted with the
certificate of title and that it was never lost. As proof that the sale of the subject lot never
transpired, Remegia pointed out that the transaction was not annotated on TCT No. T-8502.
In their answer, the spouses Zaldivar denied the material allegations in the complaint and
raised the affirmative defense that Aurelio is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject lot
as evidenced by TCT No. 17993 and Tax Declaration No. 26864 covering the same. Aurelio
claimed that he acquired the subject lot by purchase from Dalman who, in turn, bought the same
from Gil on April 4, 1951. Gil allegedly purchased the subject lot from Remegia and this sale was
allegedly conformed and ratified by the latter and her uncle, Narciso Labuntog, before a notary
public on December 3, 1965.
After Aurelio obtained a loan from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), the
spouses Zaldivar constructed their house on the subject lot. They alleged that they and their
predecessors-in-interest had been occupying the said property since 1947 openly, publicly,
adversely and continuously or for over 41 years already. Aurelio filed a petition for the issuance of
a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-8502 because when he asked Remegia about it, the
latter claimed that it had been lost.
RTC rendered judgment in favor of Remegia. It declared that TCT No. 17993 in the name
of Aurelio was null and void for having been obtained through misrepresentation, fraud or evident
bad faith by claiming in his affidavit that Remegia’s title (TCT No. T-8502) had been lost, when in
fact it still existed.
On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled in favor of the spouses
Zaldivar. The CA stated that Remegia’s claim that she did not sell the same to Gil was belied by a
deed which showed that she transferred ownership thereof in favor of Gil. The fact that the said
transaction was not annotated on Remegia’s title was not given significance by the CA since the
lack of annotation would merely affect the rights of persons who are not parties to the said
contract. It further added that prescription and laches or estoppel had already set in against
Remegia.
Hence, petitioner filed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court has acquired jurisdiction over the case when it ordered the
issuance of new certificate of title (despite existence of owner’s duplicate copy).
RULING:
Supreme Court ruled the court which issued the new title in favor of respondent did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case. It ruled favor of Remigia Feliciano.
It has been consistently ruled that "when the owner’s duplicate certificate of title has not
been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted certificate is
void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. Reconstitution can validly
be made only in case of loss of the original certificate." In such a case, the decision authorizing
the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title may be attacked any time.
In the case at bar, it should be recalled that respondent Aurelio Zaldivar filed with the
then CFI of Misamis Oriental a petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT
No.T-8502, alleging that the owner’s duplicate copy was lost. The said CFI granted the petition
and consequently, a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-8502 was issued. However, as the
trial court correctly held, the CFI which granted respondent Aurelio’s petition for the issuance of a
new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-8502 did not acquire jurisdiction to issue such order.
The new owner’s duplicate TCT No. T-8502 issued by the CFI upon the petition filed by
respondent Aurelio is thus void. As Remegia averred during her testimony, the owner’s duplicate
copy of TCT No. T-8502 was never lost and was in her possession from the time it was issued to
her.

CD-Feliciano vs. Zaldivar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CD-Feliciano vs. Zaldivar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feliciano vs.

Hence, petitioner filed before the Supreme Court.

You might also like