Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Coombs vs. Castaneda

    Uploaded by

    Geimmo S
    52 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition for annulment of judgment filed by petitioner Mercedita Coombs regarding a decision by the Regional Trial Court that cancelled the title over her property. [1] The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. [2] However, the Supreme Court ruled that the petition was meritorious because the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter in the case since petitioner's duplicate title was never actually lost as alleged. [3] The fact of loss of the duplicate title is jurisdictional, so the RTC decision cancelling the title was void.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a petition for annulment of judgment filed by petitioner Mercedita Coombs regarding a decision by the Regional Trial Court that cancelled the title over her property. [1] The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. [2] However, the Supreme Court ruled that the petition was meritorious because the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter in the case since petitioner's duplicate title was never actually lost as alleged. [3] The fact of loss of the duplicate title is jurisdictional, so the RTC decision cancelling the title was void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views2 pages

    Coombs vs. Castaneda

    Uploaded by

    Geimmo S
    This case involves a petition for annulment of judgment filed by petitioner Mercedita Coombs regarding a decision by the Regional Trial Court that cancelled the title over her property. [1] The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. [2] However, the Supreme Court ruled that the petition was meritorious because the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter in the case since petitioner's duplicate title was never actually lost as alleged. [3] The fact of loss of the duplicate title is jurisdictional, so the RTC decision cancelling the title was void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    MERCEDITA C. COOMBS, Petitioner vs VICTORIA C. CASTANEDA, et.al.

    , 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.

    The Assailed Court of Appeals Resolutions

    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.

    RULING: YES. The petition is meritorious.

    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.

    You might also like