Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Coombs vs. Castaneda
Coombs vs. Castaneda
, Respondents
(G.R. No. 192353, March 15, 2017)
FACTS:
This case stemmed from a petition for annulment of judgment to declare the Decision of (RTC), Muntinlupa City as null
and void, filed by herein petitioner (Coombs) before the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner Coombs narrated in the said petition that she is the owner of the real property covered by (TCT) No. 6715; that
sometime in March 2005, when she tried to pay the real property tax due relative to the real property, she was told that
said real property had already been cancelled and had been replaced by TCT No. 14115 issued in the name of herein
respondent (Santos); that TCT No. 6715 was ordered cancelled by the RTC in a Decision dated August 26, 2004 in LRC
Case; that she neither authorized (Castaneda), the Atty-in-fact on the LRC Case to file petition for issuance of a second
owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 sometime in 2004, nor asked her to sell the subject property to herein respondent
Santos; that Santos, in tum, sold the same to herein respondents (spouses Leviste ); that the spouses Leviste executed a
real estate mortgage over the subject property in favor of herein respondent Bank (BPI Family).
Petitioner anchored her prayer for the annulment of the RTC Decision on the ground that, since the owner's duplicate
copy of TCT No. 6715 had never been lost as it had always been in her custody, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over
the subject matter of LRC Case No. 04-035.
In its Resolution, relying on Section 1, Rule 47 of the Revised R.O.C, the C.A dismissed the petition for annulment of
judgment. According to the appellate court –there is no allegation in the petition that the petitioner has failed to avail of
any of the aforementioned remedies in Section 1 through no fault of his before instituting the herein petition. This is an
important condition for the availment of this remedy. The petition is also not sufficient in substance. Under Section 2[,]
Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the grounds for Annulment of Judgment are: (a) lack of jurisdiction of the lower
court; and (b) extrinsic fraud. Obviously, the ground relied upon in the present action is extrinsic fraud. However, the
petitioner failed to state the facts constituting extrinsic fraud as a ground. Since the petitioner failed to avail [of] any of
aforementioned remedies in Section 1 without justification and that the ground relied upon was not substantiated, this
petition has no prima facie merit.
Petitioner Coombs moved for the reconsideration, w/c was denied and explained that the RTC has jurisdiction over all
proceedings involving title to real property and land registration cases.
It cited Veneracion v. Mancilla, where it was held that failure to append the necessary documents may prompt the
appellate court to dismiss the petition outright or deny the same due course. Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE:
WoN that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter in LRC Case.
Contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by petitioner Coombs
was clearly grounded on lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter of the case, and not
extrinsic fraud.
Simply stated, petitioner Coombs sought to annul the RTC Decision for being rendered without jurisdiction .
According to her, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of LRC Case No. 04-035-one for the
reconstitution of a lost certificate of title-because the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 was never lost in the
first place, which argument has been upheld by the Court in a catena of cases that she cited to support her
assertion.
It is doctrinal that jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter is conferred by law. Section 10
of Republic Act No. 26 vests the RTC with jurisdiction over the judicial reconstitution of a lost or destroyed
owner's duplicate of the certificate of title. However, the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the subject
matter of LRC Case No. 04-035 was within the RTC's jurisdiction, being a court of general jurisdiction.
In a long line of cases, the Court has held that the RTC has no jurisdiction when the certificate sought to be
reconstituted was never lost or destroyed but is in fact in the possession of another person . In other words,
THE FACT OF LOSS OF THE DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE IS JURISDICTIONAL.
Thus, petitioner Coombs' mere allegation that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 7615 was never lost and has in
fact always been with her gave rise to a prima facie case of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the proceedings in
LRC Case No. 04-035. This is exactly the situation a petition for annulment of judgment aims to remedy.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals' dismissal based on technical grounds (i.e., failure to allege that she did not avail of
a motion for new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies and failure to append the affidavits of
witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action of her petition) was also erroneous.
First, a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is fundamentally void. Thus, it may be questioned any time unless
laches has already set in.
Second, petitioner Coombs in fact was able to attach to her petition documents supporting her cause of action.
As we ruled in Tan Po Chu v. Court of Appeals, if allegations of this nature turned out to be true, the RTC
Decision would be void and the Court of Appeals would have been duty-bound to strike it down. Thus, the
appellate court erred when it brushed aside this duty and dismissed the case outright based on a strict interpretation
of technical rules.