G.R. No. 222916

G.R. No.
222916
HEIRS OF SPOUSES GERY ACIO A. RAMIREZ AND MARTINA CARBONEL, REPRESENTED BY CESAR S.
RAMIREZ AND ELMER R.ADUCA, Petitioners
vs.
JOEY ABON AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OFNUEVA VIZCAYA, Respondents
Sps. Ramirez is the registered owner of Original Certificate of Title No. T-4480. Angel Abon (father of
Joey Abon) allegedly purchased the said property by virtue of Confirmation of Previous Sale (CPS).
The said OCT was entrusted to Respondent Joey Abon as his mother was left for Canada.
Respondent Abon then executed an Affidavit of Loss and had the same registered with the RD. Then,
he filed a petition for reconstitution [(Petition for Reconstitution)] of the lost owner's duplicate of the
OCT. [The case was docketed as LRC No. 684.
The RTC issued a Decision granting respondent Abon's petition, ordering the RD to issue a new
owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 4480 in lieu of the lost one and the decision became final and
executory. Hence, the herein petition for annulment of judgment.
Section 109 of PD 1529, which is the applicable law in the instant case, reads:
SEC. 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. -In case of loss or theft of an owner's
duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in
his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the
loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a
person applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a
sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other
person in interest and registered.
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.
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.
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 argument is misplaced.
As already explained above, persons registered as owners in a certificate of title, by their very
status as registered owners, are interested parties in a petition for the reconstitution of a lost
or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate of title because they are legally presumed to be the
owners of the property. To restate once more, while registration does not vest title and it is merely
evidence of such title, a Torrens certificate is still the best evidence of ownership over registered land
as compared to a mere deed evidencing a contract of sale. The registered owner has a preferential
right to the possession of the owner's duplicate than one whose name does not appear in the
certificate.
Nevertheless, it is also not disputed that the subject OCT remains to be registered in the name of
the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez, i.e., the Sps.
Ramirez. In other words, regardless of the sale of the subject property in favor of the father of
respondent Abon, Angel, the registered owners of the subject property remained to be the Sps.
Ramirez, aside from the 135-square meter portion of the subject property that was subdivided and
now covered by TCT No. T- 50359 registered in the name of Angel. It is similarly not in dispute
that the Notice of Hearing was not sent to the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez. Otherwise
stated, the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez were not notified of the Petition for
Reconstitution.
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 Court answers in the affirmative.
According to Section 41 of PD 1529, "[t]he owner's duplicate certificate of title shall be delivered
to the registered owner or to his duly authorized representative." Because the owner's
duplicate copy of a certificate of title is given to and possessed by the registered owner,
ordinarily, when an owner's duplicate copy is lost or destroyed, it is the registered owner who
files the petition for reconstitution. In such a situation, other persons who have an interest in the
property, such as mortgagees, must be notified of the proceedings. This is to amply protect their
interests and to ensure that the encumbrances evidencing these interests, which are
annotated in the owner's duplicate copy, will be carried over to the reconstituted owner's
duplicate copy.
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.
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. 684 7
because of its failure to notify the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez, the latter's Petition for
Annulment of Judgment is meritorious.

G.R. No. 222916

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

G.R. No. 222916

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

This argument is misplaced.

The Court answers in the affirmative.

You might also like