Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

LAND TITLES Cases to the property, subject of the foreclosure sale, was in her

possession. Thus, the trial court issued an Order[10] directing petitioner


PETITIONS AND ACTIONS AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION to deliver to private respondent within seventy-two (72) hours therefrom
the owners duplicate copy.
SURRENDER OF WITHHELD DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE
Because of petitioners failure to comply with the Order, the trial
ASUNCION SAN JUAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and court issued another Order dated May 25, 1988, the dispositive portion
YOUNG AUTO SUPPLY CO., respondents. of which reads:

DECISION In view of the above, the Register of Deeds of Bacolod City is hereby
directed to annotate in the original Certificate of Title kept in its file the
Final Certificate of Sale duly entered as Doc. No. 254; Page No. 51;
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Book No. 61; Series of 1986, of Ex-Oficio Notary Public Judge Vivencio
Ibrado, MTCC, Bacolod City, executed by Atty. Leopoldo Cioco, Ex-
Can courts validly order the Register of Deeds to annotate a final
Oficio City Sheriff on September 22, 1986 in favor of the [herein private
Certificate of Sale in the Original Certificate of Title and to register such respondent] without the necessity of presenting the owners copy of the
sale, even if the registered owner-mortgagor refuses to surrender the
aforementioned transfer certificate of title.[11]
owners duplicate Certificate of Title?
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Opposition to
The Case
the Petition, pummeling for the first time the validity and the regularity of
the issuance of the final Certificate of Sale. Likewise, petitioner belatedly
This is the main question raised in the Petition for Review before asserted that she had already revoked the Special Power of Attorney
us, assailing the November 20, 1992 Decision[1] of the Court of she had admittedly issued in favor of Rafael Alducente.[12] However, the
Appeals[2] (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 18444. The CA affirmed the May 25, trial court denied the Motion on June 27, 1988.[13]
1988 Order[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental
(Branch 52),[4] which voided the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. T- Ruling of the Court of Appeals
120163 and ordered the Register of Deeds to annotate, in the Original
Certificate of Title, the final Certificate of Sale in favor of private
The appellate court held that the final Certificate of Sale was
respondent, without the need of presenting the owners duplicate copy.
properly and regularly issued by the ex oficio city sheriff of Bacolod
City. This was done by virtue of the alleged failure of the oppositor,
The decretal portion of the CA Decision reads as follows: Asuncion San Juan, to exercise her right of redemption that expired on
June 26, 1986 x x x. The Certificate of Sale was dated June 5, 1985,
Pursuant therefore to the foregoing, in order for the Register of Deeds and it was not until September 22, 1986, that the final Certificate of Sale
to issue a new certificate of title, the existing certificate of title shall first was executed, yet she never redeemed the property or questioned the
be declared null and void or cancelled if the same has not been regularity of the transaction in the intervening period except when the
delivered by the registered owner to the vendee in the foreclosure appellant filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of June 9, 1988.[14]
sale. As the appellant failed to comply with the order of the court dated
May 12, 1988, the subsequent order of the court a quo dated May 25, The Court of Appeals added that the fact of the mortgage, its
1988 declaring Certificate of Title No. T-120163 of oppositor San Juan release and the Certificate of Sale are matters of record in the Office of
as null and void, and directing further the Register of Deeds to
the Register of Deeds of Bacolod City. It cannot be, therefore, said that
annotate the Final Certificate of Sale in favor of petitioner without the these instruments were irregularly executed. For being public
necessity of presenting the owners copy of the aforementioned documents, they are entitled to the presumption of regularity. To
certificate of title was proper and consistent with the law governing the
counteract all this, which appellant now seeks to do, there must be
same. convincing, not merely preponderant proof. Hence, the issuance of the
new Certificate of Title in favor of petitioner as a consequence of the
ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, registration of the final Certificate of Sale and the execution of the other
and the instant appeal is DISMISSED.[5] instruments relative thereto are presumed regular.[15]
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Disagreeing with the CA, petitioner elevated the matter to this
Resolution dated April 6, 1993.[6] Court via the Petition earlier mentioned.[16]
The Facts Issue

The subject of the present controversy is Lot No. 14-B, Bacolod The Petition submits this sole issue for the Courts
Cadastre, which was formerly covered by Transfer Certificate of Title consideration: the petitioner was denied her day in court in gross
(TCT) No. T-120163 registered in the name of Petitioner Asuncion San violation of due process of law.[17]
Juan. The property was mortgaged to Private Respondent Young Auto
Supply Co., Inc., through petitioners attorney-in-fact, Rafael The Courts Ruling
Alducente. Upon default in the payment of the principal loan secured by
the mortgage, an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding was instituted by
The Petition is utterly without merit.
private respondent before the city sheriff of Bacolod City. Since private
respondent was the sole bidder in the auction sale held on June 5, 1985,
the corresponding Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor. On Sole Issue:
September 13, 1985, the Certificate was registered with the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Bacolod City.[7] Petitioners Right to Due Process

After the lapse of the one-year redemption period, a final Petitioner contends that (i)t is a matter of record that the [trial]
Certificate of Sale was issued on September 22, 1986.[8] However, court x x x, as sustained by the respondent court, ordered herein
private respondent could not register it, because petitioner refused to petitioner to surrender her owners duplicate certificate of title without
surrender her duplicate Certificate of Title. considering her opposition, in gross violation not only of her basic rights
but also of the provisions of Sec. III of Act 496 (the Land Registration
Thus, on March 11, 1988, private respondent filed, before the Act), now Sec. 107 of PD 1529, having proceeded without priorly
Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, a Petition[9] for the determining whether or not the petitioner had been lawfully divested of
registration and the annotation of the final Certificate of Sale. During the her title to the subject property, pursuant to the aforecited law. We do
trial, petitioner manifested that the owners duplicate Certificate of Title not agree.

1
Citing the constitutional provision on due process, petitioner begs Certificate of Sale in the Original Certificate of Title, even without the
for justice. However, she has no one else to blame but herself for being presentation of petitioners duplicate, was valid. To rule otherwise would
remiss in protecting and defending her property rights over the contested result in a situation in which a purchaser in a foreclosure sale can never
lot. To defend her title over the property, she should have filed the consolidate his or her title to the property even after the lapse of the
necessary court action from the moment she discovered the mortgage. redemption period, because of the sheer refusal or failure of the former
owner to submit the latters duplicate certificate of title. The mortgagee-
A careful examination of the records[18] shows that on July 27, purchaser would then be at the mercy of the mortgagor, if the latter
1985, petitioner received a copy of the July 17, 1985 Order issued by without any just cause withholds such duplicate. Apt is the following
the Regional Trial Court, Negros Occidental, Branch 51, in which the pronouncement of the Court in Toledo-Banaga v. Court of Appeals:[26]
foreclosure and sale proceedings were instituted. The Order directed the
registration of the June 5, 1985 Certificate of Sale covering the subject Petitioners[] other contention that the execution of the final and
property. executory decision--which is to issue titles in the name of private
respondent--cannot be compelled by mandamus because of the
From that moment, she should have exerted and exhausted all formality that the registered owner first surrenders her duplicate
possible judicial remedies to protect her property rights over the Certificates of Title for cancellation per Section 80 of Presidential
contested land. Yet, it took almost three (3) years -- well beyond the Decree 1529 cited by the Register of Deeds, bears no merit. In effect,
lapse of the redemption period -- and the issuance of the final Certificate they argue that the winning party must [a]wait execution until the losing
of Sale, before she protested and attacked the validity of the real estate party has complied with the formality of surrender of the duplicate
mortgage. title. Such preposterous contention borders on the absurd and has no
place in our legal system x x x. Otherwise, if execution cannot be had
The right to attack the validity of a mortgage may be lost by a just because the losing party will not surrender her titles, the entire
waiver of defects and objections, such as alleged fraud or proceeding in the courts, not to say the efforts, expenses and time of
misrepresentation. Mortgagors desiring to attack the validity of a the parties, would be rendered nugatory. It is revolting to conscience to
mortgage should act with promptness. Otherwise, unreasonable delay allow petitioners to further avert the satisfaction of their obligation
may amount to ratification.[19] because of sheer literal adherence to technicality, or formality of
surrender of the duplicate titles.
A duly executed mortgage is presumed to be valid until the
contrary is shown. To the party attacking rests the burden of proving its Significantly, Section 71 of Presidential Decree No.
invalidity due to fraud, duress or illegality. It should be stressed that, as 1529[27] provides:
a general rule, courts will adopt such construction as will sustain rather
than defeat the mortgage.[20] SEC. 71. Surrender of certificate in involuntary dealings. - If an
attachment or other lien in the nature of involuntary dealing in
Furthermore, in Gonzales v. Basa,[21] the Court ruled that once a registered land is registered, and the duplicate certificate is not
mortgage has been signed in due form, the mortgagee is entitled to its presented at the time of registration, the Register of Deeds shall, within
registration as a matter of right. By executing the mortgage, the thirty-six hours thereafter, send notice by mail to the registered owner,
mortgagor is understood to have given his consent to its registration, stating that such paper has been registered, and requesting him to
and he cannot be permitted to revoke it unilaterally. The validity and send or produce his duplicate certificate so that a memorandum of the
fulfillment of contracts can not be left to the will of one of the contracting attachment or other lien may be made thereon. If the owner neglects or
parties. refuses to comply within a reasonable time, the Register of Deeds shall
report the matter to the court, and it shall, after notice, enter an order to
Additionally, we find petitioners protestations barred by the owner to produce his certificate at a time and place named therein,
laches. Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an and may enforce the order by suitable process.
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by
exercising due diligence could or should have [been] done earlier; it is The proceedings before the lower court and the Register of Deeds
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, of Bacolod City were all consistent with the applicable law and
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either jurisprudence. Petitioner has not satisfactorily shown any reversible
abandoned it or declined to assert it.[22] Mortgages may be fraudulent, error on the part of the Court of Appeals.
illegal, or otherwise invalid. Through their acts or omissions, however,
mortgagors may be estopped from denying the effect or from contesting WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed
the foreclosure, either by prolonged neglect to set up any defense Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
against it or by permission to sell the property on foreclosure.[23]
SO ORDERED.
In any case, the records show that petitioner was actually
summoned by the trial court to appear and to show cause why the
[P]etition [for Registration and Annotation of Certificate of Sale Without AMENDMENT AND ALTERATION OF CERTIFICATES
Presentation of Owners Copy] should not be granted. [24] Through
counsel, she in fact attended the May 12, 1988 hearing, in which she REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
manifested that the owners duplicate Certificate of Title to the subject vs.
property was in her possession. Thus, she was directed to deliver it to CARMEN SANTORIO GALENO, Respondent.
private respondent for the purpose of annotating the final Certificate of
Sale in favor of the latter.[25]Petitioner failed to heed the Order, to which DECISION
she did not object either. She simply remained silent until an adverse
Order, nullifying her duplicate copy of the title, was issued by the RTC. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
When petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration, the trial court Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2
asked respondent to comment thereon. She thereafter filed a Reply.
dated June 27, 2013 and the Resolution3 dated September 17, 2014
The filing of these pleadings gave the parties the opportunity and rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 02085,
the means to raise and substantiate their respective affirming the Orders dated October 13, 20064 and January 22, 20075 of
arguments. Petitioner cannot now claim to have been denied her day in the Regional Trial Court of Dumangas, Iloilo, Branch 68 (RTC), which
court. She was duly heard. Indeed, she was given ample opportunity to allowed the correction of the area of Lot No. 2285 in Original Certificate
be heard. of Title (OCT) No. 46417 from 20,948 square meters to 21,298 square
meters.
Going now to the meat of the controversy, we hold that under the
circumstances obtaining, the annotation of private respondents final The Facts
2
On September 2, 2003, respondent Carmen Santorio Galeno property in OCT No. 46417 from 20,948 square meters to 21,248
(respondent) filed a petition6 for correction of the area of Lot No. 2285 square meters.
covered by OCT No. 46417, Dingle Cadastre (subject property) before
the RTC. She alleged therein that she is one of the co-owners of the Records reveal that respondent offered in evidence the following
subject property by virtue of a Deed of Sale7 dated July 6, 1962. The documents: (a) the Certification24 issued by a certain Althea C.
survey and subdivision of the subject property was duly approved by Acevedo (Acevedo), Engineer IV, Chief of the Technical Services
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) per its Section of the Office of the Regional Technical Director, Land
Approved Subdivision Plan of Lot No. 2285.8 Management Services of the DENR in Iloilo City, which states that "the
true and correct area of [L]ot 2285, Cad. 246 Dingle Cadastre is 21,928
Respondent further alleged that when she and her co-owners had the square meters;" (b) the technical description25 of Lot No. 2285, a copy
subject property resurveyed for the purpose of partition, they of which was certified by Ameto Caballero (Caballero), Chief of the
discovered a discrepancy in the land area of the subject property as Surveys Division, while another copy was certified correct by Acevedo;
appearing in OCT No. 46417,9in that the title reflects an area and (c) the approved subdivision plan of Lot No. 2258, 26 certified by
of 20,948 square meters, while the Certification 10 issued by the DENR Rogelio M. Santome (Santome), Geodetic Engineer; Alfredo Muyarsas
Office of the Regional Technical Director, Lands Management (Muyarsas), Chief of the Regional Surveys Division, and Edgardo R.
Services, shows an area of 21,298 square meters. Hence, she sought Gerobin (Gerobin), OIC, Regional Technical Director of the Land
to correct the area of the subject property in order to avoid further Management Services, DENR. On the strength of these pieces of
confusion, and claimed to have notified the adjoining owners. 11 evidence, respondent sought a reconciliation of the area of the subject
property with the records of the DENR.
There being no opposition to the petition, the RTC allowed the
presentation of respondent's evidence ex parte before the Branch Unfortunately, the foregoing documentary evidence are not sufficient to
12
Clerk as well as for the satisfaction of the jurisdictional requirements. warrant the correction prayed for. The Court cannot accord probative
weight upon them in view of the fact that the public officers who issued
The RTC Ruling the same did not testify in court to prove the facts stated therein.

In an Order13 dated October 13, 2006, the RTC granted the petition In Republic v. Medida, 27 the Court held that certifications of the
upon a finding that respondent was able to substantiate the allegations Regional Technical Director, DENR cannot be considered prima
in her petition to warrant a correction of the area of the subject facie evidence of the facts stated therein, holding that:
property. Hence, it directed the Register of Deeds of the Province of
Iloilo to correct such area in OCT No. 46417 from 20,948 to 21,298 Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the
square meters. 14 Revised Rules on Evidence as follows:

Herein petitioner Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), through the (a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion for reconsideration sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
claiming that the adjoining owners had not been notified, stressing that whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
such notice is a jurisdictional requirement. 15 In the Order 16 dated
January 22, 2007, the RTC denied the motion, finding that a Notice of (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills
Hearing 17 was sent to the adjoining owners. As such, respondent was and testaments; and
able to prove compliance with the said jurisdictional requirement. 18
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.19 required by law to be entered therein.

The CA Ruling Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents
referred to in Section 19(a), when admissible for any purpose, may be
20
In a Decision dated June 27, 2013, the CA affirmed the RTC evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
Order.1âwphi1 It found that respondent, by a preponderance of officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy x x x.
evidence, was able to prove, based on the records of the proper
government authority, i.e., the Office of the Technical Director, Land Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:
Management Services of the DENR, that the true and correct area of
the subject property was 21,298 square meters as shown in the "Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence. - Documents consisting of
approved plan. Moreover, petitioner failed to rebut with contrary entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
evidence respondent's claim that she and her co-owners followed the officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. All other
boundaries in the technical description of OCT No. 46417 when they public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact
caused its resurvey. In fact, no proof had been adduced to show that which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter."
the boundaries had been altered. Also, the CA pointed out that none of
the adjoining owners, who were properly notified of the proceedings The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR,
and who stand to be adversely affected by the change in the land area certifications [do] not fall within the class of public documents
of the subject property, objected to respondent's petition. 21 contemplated in the first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The
certifications do not reflect "entries in public records made in the
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration22 was denied in a performance of a duty by a public officer," such as entries made by the
Resolution23 dated September 17, 2014; hence, this petition. Civil Registrar in the books of registries, or by a ship captain in the
ship's logbook. The certifications are not the certified copies or
The Issue Before the Court authenticated reproductions of original official records in the
legal custody of a government office. The certifications are not
The issue advanced for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA even records of public documents. x x x28 (Emphases supplied)
erred in upholding the correction of the area of the subject property in
OCT No. 46417. As such, sans the testimonies of Acevedo, Caballero, and the other
public officers who issued respondent's documentary evidence to
The Court's Ruling confirm the veracity of its contents, the same are bereft of probative
value and cannot, by their mere issuance, prove the facts stated
The petition is meritorious. therein. 29 At best, they may be considered only as prima
facie evidence of their due execution and date of issuance but do not
A scrutiny of the evidence marked and formally offered by respondent constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.30
before the court a quo shows that the former failed to prove that there
was sufficient basis to allow the correction of the area of the subject
3
In fact, the contents of the certifications are hearsay because On November 29, 2000, the petitioner brought a petition for the
respondent's sole witness and attorney-in-fact, Lea Galeno Barraca, cancellation of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 684 docketed as
was incompetent to testify on the veracity of their contents, 31 as she LRC Case No. 00-059. The petition, ostensibly made under Section
did not prepare any of the certifications nor was she a public officer of 108 of P.D. No. 1529, impleaded the Republic of the Philippines
the concerned government agencies. Notably, while it is true that the (Republic), Filinvest Development Corporation (FDC), and Filinvest
public prosecutor who represented petitioner interposed no objection to Alabang, Inc. (FAI) as respondents.
the admission of the foregoing evidence in the proceedings in the court
below,32 it should be borne in mind that "hearsay evidence, whether The petition averred that the petitioner was the owner of Parcel 1, Plan
objected to or not, has no probative value unless the proponent can 11-69, with an area of 71,692,754 square meters, situated in
show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay Parañaque City, Pasay City, Taguig City and San Pedro, Laguna, and
evidence rule,"33 which do not, however, obtain in this case. Verily, Parcel 2 Plan 11-69, with a total area of 71,409,413 square meters,
while respondent's documentary evidence may have been admitted situated in Alabang, Muntinlupa, Parañaque City and Las Piñas City;
due to the opposing party's lack of objection, it does not, however, that the total landholding of the petitioner consisted of 143,102,167
mean that they should be accorded any probative weight. The Court square meters, or approximately 14,310 hectares; that OCT No. 684
has explained that: was registered in the name of the Republic, and included Lot 392 of
the Muntinlupa Estate with an area of approximately 244 hectares; that
The general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible. However, Lot 392 was segregated from OCT No. 684, resulting in the issuance of
the lack of objection to hearsay testimony may result in its being Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 185552,2 also in the name of the
admitted as evidence. But one should not be misled into thinking that Republic; that FDC and FAI developed Lot 392 into a subdivision
such declarations are thereby impressed with probative value. based on their joint venture agreement with the Government; that
Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of pursuant to the joint venture agreement, Lot 392 was further
evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not cannot be subdivided, causing the cancellation of TCT No. 185552, and the
given credence for it has no probative value.34 issuance of TCTs for the resulting individual subdivision lots in the
names of the Republic and FAI; and that the subdivision lots were then
Besides, case law states that the "absence of opposition from sold to third parties.
government agencies is of no controlling significance because the
State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its The petition for cancellation prayed as follows:3
officials or agents. Neither is the Republic barred from assailing the
decision granting the petition for reconstitution [or correction of title, as xxxx
in this case] if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record,
such petition has no merit."35 Moreover, "in civil cases, the party having WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that OCT No. 684 in the
the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence name of the Republic of the Philippine Islands and TCT No. 185552 in
thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence the name of the Republic of the Philippines, Book 26, Page 152,
and not upon the weakness of the defendant's."36 Register of Deeds, Muntinlupa City, and all subsequent titles derived
from said TCT No. 185552 as stated in paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 28
In fine, the Court holds that respondent did not present any competent above-quoted, Proclamation No. 1240 dated June 23, 1998, Resolution
evidence to prove that the true and correct area of the subject property No. 01-311 of the City of Muntinlupa dated February 7, 2001 be
is 21,298 square meters instead of 20,948 square meters to warrant a cancelled and in lieu thereof, and said Register of Deeds be ordered to
correction thereof in OCT No. 46417. Accordingly, respondent's issue a new certificate of title in the name of Luciano P. Paz, married to
petition for the correction of the said Certificate of Title must be denied, Elvira Joson, both of legal ages, Filipinos and residents of Lot 5, Block
and the present petition be granted. 31, Modesta Village, San Mateo, Rizal, free from all liens and
encumbrances, and defendants be ordered to vacate the property
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated covered by said title; ordering respondents jointly and severally to pay
June 27, 2013 and the Resolution dated September 17, 2014 rendered petitioner compensatory damages in the amount of not less than P10
by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 02085 are Million, moral damages in the amount of P1 Million, exemplary
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Carmen Santorio Galeno's damages in the amount of P1 Million and P2 Million for attorney’s fees.
petition for correction of area of Lot No. 2285 on Original Certificate of
Title No. 46417 is DISMISSED. Petitioner prays for other reliefs just and equitable to the premises.

SO ORDERED. xxxx

On January 19, 2001, FDC and FAI moved to dismiss the petition for
cancellation on the following grounds,4 to wit:

(1) The serious and controversial dispute spawned by the


LUCIANO P. PAZ, Petitioner, Petition for cancellation of title is litigable in an ordinary
vs. action outside the special and limited jurisdiction of land
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH THE registration courts. The Petition is thus removed from the
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ambit of Sec. 108 of the Property Registration Decree which
PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT requires, as an indispensable element for availment of the
CORPORATION, and FILINVEST ALABANG, INC., Respondents. relief thereunder, either unanimity of the parties or absence
of serious controversy or adverse claim. It authorizes only
DECISION amendment and alteration of certificates of title, not
cancellation thereof;
BERSAMIN, J.:
(2) Lack of jurisdiction of the Court over the persons of the
The petitioner assails the decision promulgated on August 1, respondents who were not validly served with summons but
2002,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the dismissal by only a copy of the Petition;
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 276, in Muntinlupa City of his
petition for the cancellation of a certificate of title brought under Section (3) Docket fees for the Petition have not been paid.
108 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 (Property Registration
Decree). (4) The Petition does not contain the requisite certificate of
non-forum shopping.
Antecedents

4
The petitioner countered that his petition for cancellation was not an reviewed or corrected only by appeal (Jalandoni vs. Drilon, 327 SCRA
initiatory pleading that must comply with the regular rules of civil 107).
procedure but a mere incident of a past registration proceeding; that
unlike in an ordinary action, land registration was not commenced by Applying the aforecited jurisprudence to the case at bench, the Petition
complaint or petition, and did not require summons to bring the must fail. It is all too obvious that Petitioner would have Us determine
persons of the respondents within the jurisdiction of the trial court; and whether or not Public Respondent correctly rendered judgment in
that a service of the petition sufficed to bring the respondents within the ordering the dismissal of his Petition. Sadly, as the aforecited rulings
jurisdiction of the trial court. have shown, a special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed
for correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment (Diaz
On May 21, 2001, the RTC granted FDC and FAI’s motion to vs. Diaz, 331 SCRA 302). Certiorari will not be issued to xxx correct
dismiss,5 viz: erroneous conclusion of law or fact (Tensorex Industrial Corp. vs. CA,
316 SCRA 471).
xxxx
To reiterate, Petitioner has failed to overcome the burden of proving
The petition at bench therefore bears all the elements of an action for how Public Respondent may be faulted with having acted with grave
recovery: (A) it was commenced long after the decree of registration in abuse of discretion in rendering judgment ordering the dismissal of his
favor of the Respondent Republic of the Philippines had become final Petition. That the court a quo cannot share Petitioner’s interpretation of
and incontrovertible, following the expiration of the reglementary certain alleged laws and jurisprudence hardly constitute the abuse of
period; for a review of the decree of registration issued to the discretion contemplated under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
"government of the Philippine Islands."; (B) there is an imputation of a Procedure and as applied by the Highest Tribunal in numerous cases.
wrongful or fraudulent titling in the issuance of Original Certificate of Ours is not, through this Petition, to determine whether or not Public
Title No. 684 allegedly irregular due to the absence of survey plan, Respondent erred in its judgment but to determine whether or not
decree of registration and court records; (C) the Petition finally seeks Public Respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion
as its main relief the issuance of a new title to him, Luciano Paz, after amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Original Certificate of Title No. 684 is invalidated, or the reconveyance
of the property to him. This action although entitled a Petition for WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Petition is hereby
cancellation of a title, which is a complaint by itself, is complete with DENIED DUE COURSE and ordered DISMISSED. Resultantly, the
the name of the parties, the subject matter, the cause of action, and assailed Resolution/s are hereby AFFIRMED, with costs to Petitioner.
the reliefs prayed for, which are all components of a regular complaint.
It is in fact an initiatory pleading, and is not a mere motion. SO ORDERED.

It is futile to deny that the petition is a fresh lawsuit, involving title to a On February 24, 2003, the CA denied the petitioner’s motion for partial
land or an interest thereon "arising after the original" proceeding, which reconsideration.7
should be filed and entitled under the original land registration case
under the instructions of Sec. 2 of PD 1529. Indeed, this Section states Hence, the petitioner has come to the Court for review, asserting the
further post registration cause of an aggrieved party who complains of applicability of Section 108 of P.D. 1529, and insisting that his petition
being deprived of a land wrongfully or fraudulently titled in the name of filed under Section 108 of P.D. 1529 should not be dismissed because
another. As such it is fair and logical to assume that this is covered by it was exempt from the requirements of paying docket fees, of service
the current rules on an initiatory pleading and becomes vulnerable to of summons, and of the certification against forum shopping due to its
dismissal under any grounds invoked by the respondent which are not being an initiatory pleading.
mandatory and jurisdictional requirements under the present rules,
including the payment of docket fees and the certification of non forum Ruling
shopping.
The petition for review is devoid of merit. The dismissal of the petition
xxxx for certiorari by the CA was proper and correct because the RTC did
not abuse its discretion, least of all gravely.
Thence, the petitioner assailed the dismissal in the CA via petition for
certiorari, ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 reads as follows:
granting FDC and FAI’s motion to dismiss.
Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. – No erasure,
On August 1, 2002, the CA dismissed the petition for alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book
certiorari,6 stating: after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and
the attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds, except by order
xxxx of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner or other
person having interest in the registered property, or, in proper cases,
Petition denied. the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land
Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that
In a special civil action for certiorari, the burden is on Petitioner to the registered interest of any description, whether vested, contingent,
prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for the part of Public and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate
Respondent. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough (Don Orestes have arisen or been created; or that an omission or an error was made
Romualdez Electric Corporation, Inc. vs. NLRC, 319 SCRA 255). The in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or on any
mere fact that Public Respondent does not subscribe to nor accepts duplicate certificate: or that the same or any person in the certificate
Petitioner’s arguments or viewpoint does not make the former guilty of has been changed or that the registered owner has married, or, if
committing grave abuse of discretion. registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated and no
right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a
Not only that. As long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has
errors committed in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more not yet convened the same within three years after its dissolution; or
than errors of judgment which are reversible by timely appeal and not upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and
by a special civil action of certiorari (Tomas Claudio Memorial College, determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may
Inc. vs. CA, 316 SCRA 502). A Petition for Certiorari must be based on order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or
jurisdictional grounds because, as long as the respondent acted with cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other
jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security and bond if
amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this
section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the
5
judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or BENJAMIN H. CABAÑEZ, Petitioner, v. MARIE JOSEPHINE
ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other interest of a CORDERO SOLANO A.K.A. MA. JOSEPHINE S.
purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs CABAÑEZ, Respondent.
and assigns without his or their written consent. Where the owner’s
duplicate certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as DECISION
provided in the preceding section.
PERALTA, J.:
All petitions or motions filed under this section as well as any other
provision of this decree after original registration shall be filed and Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse
entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was and set aside the Amended Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of
entered. Appeals (CA), dated August 29, 2011 and January 10, 2012,
respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 101406.
Based on the provision, the proceeding for the amendment and
alteration of a certificate of title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 is Subject of the present controversy are two (2) parcels of land located
applicable in seven instances or situations, namely: (a) when in Alabang Hills, Muntinlupa, with land areas measuring 739 and 421
registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, square meters, and are covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (b) when new 154626 and 154627, respectively. Appearing on the face of these titles
interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the as the registered owner is herein respondent, "Maria Josephine S.
certificate; (c) when any error, omission or mistake was made in Cabañez, of legal age, married to [herein petitioner] Benjamin H.
entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate Cabañez x x x."
certificate; (d) when the name of any person on the certificate has been
changed; (e) when the registered owner has been married, or, On February 12, 2007, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court
registered as married, the marriage has been terminated and no right (RTC) of Muntinlupa City a "Petition for Correction of the Name and
or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; (f) when a Marital Status of the Registered Owner of Transfer Certificates of Title
corporation, which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has (TCT) No[s.] 154626 and 154627 of the Registry of Deeds for
not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; and (g) Muntinlupa City."3 The petition was docketed as LRC Case No. 07-007
when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of and raffled to Branch 203. In the said petition, respondent alleged as
title.8 follows:

We agree with both the CA and the RTC that the petitioner was in
reality seeking the reconveyance of the property covered by OCT No. xxxx
684, not the cancellation of a certificate of title as contemplated by
Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. Thus, his petition did not fall under any 1. Petitioner is of legal age, single and a resident of #21 Dona Ines St.,
of the situations covered by Section 108, and was for that reason Alabang Hills Village, Muntinlupa City;
rightly dismissed.1âwphi1
2. Petitioner is the owner of two parcels of land situated in Alabang,
Moreover, the filing of the petition would have the effect of reopening Muntinlupa City covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. 154626
the decree of registration, and could thereby impair the rights of and 154627 issued by the Registry of Deed for Muntinlupa, though the
innocent purchasers in good faith and for value. To reopen the decree same were issued under the name Ma Josephine S. Cabañez, married
of registration was no longer permissible, considering that the one-year to Benjamin H. Cabañez. x x x
period to do so had long ago lapsed, and the properties covered by
OCT No. 684 had already been subdivided into smaller lots whose 3. Without knowing the legal implication, Petitioner erroneously made it
ownership had passed to third persons. Thusly, the petition tended to appear that she is married to Mr. Benjamin when in truth and in fact
violate the proviso in Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, to wit: they are not married but merely living a common-law relationship

xxx Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give 4. Mr. Benjamin H. Cabañez is actually married to a certain Leandra D.
the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, Cabañez who had previously filed a case against Petitioner,
and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall questioning the ownership of the said properties which case however
impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for was terminated by virtue of a compromise approved by the court in an
value in good faith, or his heirs and assigns without his or their written Order dated November 23, 2000. xxx
consent. Where the owner’s duplicate certificate is not presented, a
similar petition may be filed as provided in the preceding section. 5. Mr. Benjamin H. Cabañez has also declared that he is not actually
married to the Petitioner and that he has no interest or share
Nor is it subject to dispute that the petition was not a mere continuation whatsoever in the aforesaid properties as evidenced by the hereto
of a previous registration proceeding. Shorn of the thin disguise the attached copy of the Affidavit of Declaration Against Interest dated
petitioner gave to it, the petition was exposed as a distinct and January 22, 2007. x x x
independent action to seek the reconveyance of realty and to recover
damages. Accordingly, he should perform jurisdictional acts, like 6. No interests or rights will be affected by the correction of the name
paying the correct amount of docket fees for the filing of an initiatory and status of Petitioner as registered owner of the said properties.
pleading, causing the service of summons on the adverse parties in
order to vest personal jurisdiction over them in the trial court, and PRAYER
attaching a certification against forum shopping (as required for all
initiatory pleadings). He ought to know that his taking such required
acts for granted was immediately fatal to his petition, warranting the WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
granting of the respondents’ motion to dismiss. Petitioner's name and marital status appearing in Transfer Certificates
of Title No. 154626 and 154627 be corrected to (sic) from "MA.
WHEREFORE, the PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI is JOSEPHINE S. CABAÑEZ, married to BENJAMIN H. CABAÑEZ" to
DENIED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. ["]MARIE JOSEPHINE C. SOLANO, single" as it is the true and actual
status of petitioner.
The petitioner shall pay the costs of suit.
x x x x4
SO ORDERED.
The RTC then conducted hearings where respondent presented her
evidence ex parte.

6
On June 28, 2007, the RTC of Muntinlupa, Branch 203, rendered its
Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration.11

However, in its Resolution of January 10, 2012, the CA denied


WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be well-founded and petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
meritorious, the same is hereby GRANTED.
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari based on the
Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City is following grounds:
directed to cause the correction of the name and civil status
of the registered owner of Transfer Certificate of Title Nos.
154626 and 154627 from MA. JOSEPHINE S. CABAÑEZ, A.
married to BENJAMIN H. CABAÑEZ, to MARIE JOSEPHINE
C. SOLANO, single.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
SO ORDERED.5 PATENTLY ERRED IN AMENDING ITS ORIGINAL DECISION
DATED JANUARY 27, 2011 CONSIDERING THAT THE
The RTC held that from the evidence presented by herein respondent, REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLICATION AND SUMMONS WERE NOT
it has been satisfactorily established that the subject properties should COMPLIED WITH.
indeed be in respondent's name and that her status should be "single".
B.
On November 23, 2007, herein petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for
Annulment of Judgment6assailing the above Decision of the RTC on
the ground that the said trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the WHETHER OR NOT THE PROCEEDING PROVIDED FOR UNDER
subject matter of the case because respondent's petition was not SECTION 108 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1529 IS SUMMARY
published in a newspaper of general circulation and that petitioner and IN NATURE ALBEIT THE EVIDENT PRESENCE. OF OTHER
other persons who may have interest in the subject properties were not INTERESTED PARTIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
served summons. JUDGMENT AS A RESULT OF EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS.

On January 27, 2011, the CA rendered a Decision, disposing as C.


follows:

WHETHER OR NOT THE RULING OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME


WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Annulment of Judgment is COURT IN THE CASE OF CHAN V. COURT OF APPEALS (298
hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 28 June 2007 of the Regional SCRA 713, 733) APPLIES IN THE INSTANT CASE WHERE IT WAS
Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203, in LRC Case No. 07-007, RULED THAT MERE NOTICE TO THE REGISTER OF DEEDS WAS
is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE.
SO ORDERED.7 D.
The CA ruled, among others, that respondent's petition for correction of
her name and marital status as appearing in the subject TCTs should WHETHER OR NOT AMENDMENT AND ALTERATION OF
have been published in accordance with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court CERTIFICATES OF TITLE PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 108
and that respondent failed to present sufficient evidence to prove OF PD 1529 IS AN IN REM PROCEEDINGS THAT REQUIRES
compliance with such requirement. The appellate court also held that STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT.
respondent also failed to serve summons upon petitioner, which is in
violation of the latter's right to due process and of the principle of fair
E.
play.

Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration8 contending,


WHETHER OR NOT SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF RULE 108 OF THE
among others, that the provisions of PD 1529, and not Rule 108 of the
RULES OF COURT SUPPLETORILY APPLY TO THE
Rules of Court, should be applied in the present case; posting of the
PROCEEDINGS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 108 OF PD
notice of hearing of respondent's petition is deemed constructive notice
1529 WHEREIN THE REQUIREMENT OF PUBLICATION IS
to the whole world, including petitioner; the petition filed by respondent
MANDATORY.
is an action in rem where jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the
court acquires jurisdiction over the res. F.

After petitioner filed its Comment,9 the CA rendered its presently


assailed Amended Decision and disposed, thus: WHETHER OR NOT THE PHRASE "THE COURT MAY HEAR AND
DETERMINE THE PETITION AFTER NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES IN
INTEREST" IN SECTION 108 OF PD 1529 INCLUDES PUBLICATION
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. AND SERVICE OF SUMMONS.
The Decision dated 28 June 2007 of the Regional Trial Court or
Muntinlupa City, Branch 203, in LRC Case No. 07-007, G.
is REINSTATED. Perforce, the Petition for Annulment of
Judgment is DENIED.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ACQUIRED
SO ORDERED.10 JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PETITION
IN THE ABSENCE OF SUMMONS AND PUBLICATION.
This time, the CA agreed with respondent and ruled that PD 1529 is
the governing law and that there is nothing under the pertinent H.
provisions of the said law which states that publication is a requirement
for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over respondent's petition. The CA
also ruled that petitioner failed to prove the existence of extrinsic fraud WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY IN
as a ground for annulment of the assailed judgment of the RTC. THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF NAME AND MARITAL

7
STATUS IN THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 154627 married, that the marriage has been terminated and no right or
AND 154628. interests of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a
corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has
I. not convened the same within three years after its dissolution; or upon
any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine
the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the
WHETHER OR NOT LEANDRA D. CABAÑEZ IS ENTITLED TO entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a
NOTICE AND SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY VIRTUE OF THE memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such
DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATIY CITY- terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may
BRANCH 137 TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PARCELS OF LAND consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be
LEGALLY BELONGED TO THEIR CONJUGAL PROPERTY. construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree
of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court
J. which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a
certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without
his or their written consent. Where the owner's duplicate certificate is
WHETHER OR NOT AN AFFIDAVIT THE CONTENTS OF WHICH not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided in the
WAS NOT TESTIFIED TO HAS PROBATIVE VALUE. preceding section. (emphasis supplied)

K. All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any
other provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed
and entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was
entered.
WHETHER OR NOT THE SECURITY OR BOND MENTIONED IN
SECTION 108 OF PD 1529 BEFORE ENTRY OF CORRECTION OR
ALTERATION MAY BE MADE IS MANDATORY TO PROTECT THE The Court notes that the petition was clearly one which was filed after
INTEREST OF THIRD PERSON. original registration oi title, as provided under the abovequoted Section
2 of PD 1529. Moreover, respondent's petition was filed with the RTC
for the purpose of correcting supposed errors which were committed
L.
when entries were made in the subject TCTs, as contemplated under
Section 108 of the same law.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS [IS] However, under settled jurisprudence, the enumerated instances for
PROCEDURALLY CORRECT IN ADMITTING THE SUPPLEMENTAL amendment or alteration of a certificate of title under Section 108 of PD
MEMORANDUM OF THE RESPONDENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT 1529 are non-controversial in nature.13 They are limited to issues so
THE PETITION WAS ALREADY LONG SUBMITTED FOR patently insubstantial as not to be genuine issues. The proceedings
DECISION.12 thereunder are summary in nature, contemplating insertions of
mistakes which are only clerical, but certainly not controversial issues.
The Court finds merit in the petition, but for reasons which are not
identical as those espoused by petitioner. As early as the case of Tangunan v. Republic of the Philippines14,
which was later cited in Angeles v. Razon, et al.15, this Court, sitting en
At the outset, it bears to reiterate that the CA ruled on the basis of the banc, ruled that:
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529), otherwise
known as the Property Registration Decree. Specifically, the CA cited
Sections 2 and 108 of the said law, which provide as follows: x x x the lower court did not err in finding that it lacks jurisdiction to
entertain the present petition for the simple reason that it involves a
controversial issue which takes this case out of the scope of Section
Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. 112 of Act No. 496 [now Section 108 of PD 1529]. While this section,
Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the among other things, authorized a person in interest to ask the court for
Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally any erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate of title "upon the
accepted principles underlying the Torrens system. ground that registered interests of any description, whether vested,
contingent expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased", and
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all apparently the petition comes under its scope, such relief can only be
applications for original registration of title to lands, including granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or there is no adverse
improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest; otherwise
original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all the case becomes controversial and should be threshed out in an
questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The court ordinary case or in the case where the incident properly belongs. Thus,
through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration it was held that "It is not proper to cancel an original certificate of
Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, Torrens title issued exclusively in the name of a deceased person, and
and decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land to issue a new certificate in the name of his heirs, under the provisions
registration, with the exception of stenographic notes, within five days of Section 112 of Act No. 496, when the surviving spouse claims right
from the filing or issuance thereof. (emphasis supplied) of ownership over the land covered by said certificate." And, in another
case, where there was a serious controversy between the parties as to
Section 108. Amendment, and alteration of certificates. No erasure, the right of ownership over the properties involved, this court held, "that
alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book following the principle laid down in the decision above cited, the issues
after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and herein should be ventilated in a regular action x x x."16 (citations
the attestation of the same be Register of Deeds, except by order of omitted)
the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner of other person
having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the In the present case, the Court notes that in a separate action for
Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land annulment of title and recovery of ownership filed by petitioner's wife
Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that against respondent, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 137, in its decision
the registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, in Civil Case No. 91-2648, dated July 5, 1993, made a categorical
expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated finding that petitioner and his wife are the lawful owners of the subject
and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate properties and ordering respondent to surrender possession thereof to
have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made in the said spouses.17 This RTC judgment was later affirmed by the CA in
entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate its Decision18 in CA-G.R. CV No. 49446, dated April 29, 1997.
certificate; or that the same or any person on the certificate has been Respondent, on the other hand, claims that she together with petitioner
changed; or that the registered owner has married, or, if registered as and his wife subsequently executed an amicable settlement dated
8
June 22, 2000, which was approved by the RTC, wherein petitioner's Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated August 29,
wife waived her rights and interests over the said properties. She also 2011 and January 10, 2012, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 101406,
alleged that petitioner executed an Affidavit of Declaration Against are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of
Interest, dated January 22, 2007, indicating that he has no right or Appeals, dated January 27, 2011, which annulled the June 28, 2007
interest over the subject properties. Petitioner, nonetheless, claims that Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203,
he executed a subsequent Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Interest, dated is REINSTATED.
January 14, 2008, claiming that he was deceived by respondent into
signing the said Affidavit of Declaration Against Interest and that he SO ORDERED.
was seriously ill at the time that he affixed his signature.
NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT OF LOST DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE
From the foregoing, there is no question that there is a serious (SEC. 109)
objection and an adverse claim on the part of an interested party as
shown by petitioner's subsequent execution of his Affidavit of Non- MERCEDITA C. COOMBS, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA C. CASTAÑEDA,
Waiver of Interest. The absence of unanimity among the parties is also VIRGILIO VELOSO SANTOS, SPS. PANCHO & EDITH LEVISTE,
evidenced by petitioner's petition seeking the annulment of the RTC BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
Decision which granted respondent's petition for correction of entries in MUNTINLUPA CITY, Respondents.
the subject TCTs. These objections and claims necessarily entail
litigious and controversial matters making it imperative to conduct an DECISION
exhaustive examination of the factual and legal bases of the parties'
respective positions. Certainly, such objective cannot be accomplished LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
by the court through the abbreviated action under Section 108 of PD
1529. A complete determination of the issues in the present case can Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
only be achieved if petitioner and his wife are impleaded in an the Rules of Court, as amended, seeking to reverse and set aside the
adversarial proceeding. Resolutions dated April 30, 20091 and May 25, 20102 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107949.
In addition, the Court finds apropos to the instant case the ruling in the
similar case of Martinez v. Evangelista19 where the petitioner in the
This case stemmed from a petition for annulment of judgment to
said case, being the registered owner of certain real properties, sought declare the Decision3 dated August 26, 2004 of the Regional Trial
to strike out the words "married to x x x" appearing in the Transfer
Court (RTC), Branch 206, Muntinlupa City in LRC Case No. 04-035 as
Certificates of Title covering the said properties on the ground that the
null and void, filed by herein petitioner Mercedita C. Coombs (Coombs)
same was so entered by reason of clerical error or oversight and in lieu before the Court of Appeals. The dispositive portion of the RTC
thereof the word "single" be substituted, which according to the
Decision reads:
petitioner in the said case is his true and correct civil status. This Court
held that:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the lost owner's
duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title [No.] 6715 of the Registry
x x x x changes in the citizenship of a person or in his status from of Deeds of Muntinlupa City as null and void. Accordingly, the Register
legitimate to illegitimate or from married lo not married are substantial
of Deeds of Muntinlupa City is ordered to issue a new owner's
as well as controversial, which can only be established in an duplicate copy of the said TCT No. 6715 under the same terms and
appropriate adversary proceeding as a remedy for the adjudication of conditions as the original thereof and to include thereon all annotations
real and justifiable controversies involving actual conflict of rights the
which have not been lawfully ordered cancelled by the Court upon
final determination of which depends upon the resolution of issues of payment of all fees prescribed by law.4
nationality, paternity, filiation or legitimacy of the marital status for
which existing substantive and procedural laws as well as other rules
Petitioner Coombs narrated in the said petition that she is the owner of
of court amply provide.20
the real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
6715 situated on Apitong Street, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City; that
In the present case, it is now apparent that before the trial court can sometime in March 2005, when she tried to pay the real property tax
alter the description of the civil status of respondent in the transfer due relative to the real property covered by TCT No. 6715, she was
certificates of title in question, it will have to receive evidence of and
told that said real property was no longer listed under her name; that
determine respondent's civil status. This requires a full dress trial upon further verification, she came to know that TCT No. 6715 had
rendering the summary proceedings envisaged in Section 108 of PD already been cancelled and had been replaced by TCT No. 14115
1529 inadequate.
issued in the name of herein respondent Virgilio Veloso Santos
(Santos); that TCT No. 6715 was ordered cancelled by the RTC in a
Finally, it is settled that a land registration case is a proceeding in rem, Decision dated August 26, 2004 in LRC Case No. 04-035, entitled "In
and jurisdiction in rem cannot be acquired unless there be constructive
Re: Petition for the Issuance of Second Owner's Duplicate Copy of
seizure of the land through publication and service of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6715, [by] Mercedita C. Coombs,
notice.21However, as found by the CA, respondent failed to comply with represented by her Atty.-in-Fact Victoria C. Castañeda"; that she
the said requirements. In all cases where the authority of the courts to
neither authorized Victoria C. Castañeda (Castañeda) to file petition for
proceed is conferred by a statute, and when the manner of obtaining issuance of a second owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715
jurisdiction is mandatory, it must be strictly complied with, or the sometime in 2004, nor asked her to sell the subject property to herein
proceedings will be utterly void.22 It is wrong for the CA to rule in its
respondent Santos; that Santos, in turn, sold the same to herein
Amended Decision that publication is not a jurisdictional requirement respondents Pancho and Edith Leviste (spouses Leviste); that the
for the RTC to take cognizance of respondent's petition. The appellate spouses Leviste executed a real estate mortgage over the subject
court's reliance on the case of Chan v. Court of Appeals23 is misplaced.
property in favor of herein respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands
In the said case, this Court considered the notice to the Register of Family Savings Bank (BPI Family).5
Deeds as substantial compliance with the notice and publication
requirements of the law simply because in the petition for correction
Petitioner Coombs anchored her prayer for the annulment of the RTC
filed by the petitioner therein, only the said petitioner and the Register
Decision on the ground that, since the owner's duplicate copy of TCT
of Deeds had an interest in the correction of titles sought for. This
No. 6715 had never been lost as it had always been in her custody,6the
Court ruled that there is therefore no necessity to notify other parties
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of LRC Case
who had no interest to protect in the said petition. This is not true,
No. 04-035.
however, in the present case. As discussed above, on the bases of
petitioner's serious objection and adverse claim, it is apparent that he
has an interest to protect. Thus, the ruling in Chan finds no application The Assailed Court of Appeals Resolutions
in the instant case.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Amended


9
In its Resolution dated April 30, 2009, relying on Section 1, Rule 47 of declaration of nullity of sales and titles, and damages, and to conduct
the Revised Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition further proceedings thereon.17
for annulment of judgment. According to the appellate court —
On the other hand, the spouses Leviste maintains (a) that petitioner
A careful reading of the petition reveals that there is no allegation in the Coombs' petition was grounded on extrinsic fraud and she failed to
petition that the petitioner has failed to avail of any of the properly allege the facts constituting this ground; (b) that the petition is
aforementioned remedies in Section 1 through no fault of his before infirm because petitioner Coombs did not comply with the requirements
instituting the herein petition. This is an important condition for the of alleging her failure to resort to ordinary remedies, as enumerated in
availment of this remedy. The petition is also not sufficient in Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court and appending the appropriate
substance. Under Section 2[,] Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, documents in support of her cause of action; and (c) that petitioner
the grounds for Annulment of Judgment are: (a) lack of jurisdiction of Coombs admitted that a new owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715
the lower court; and (b) extrinsic fraud. Obviously, the ground relied was issued by virtue of the RTC Decision. And, for their last point, they
upon in the present action is extrinsic fraud. However, the petitioner argue that the Petition for Annulment of Judgment is actually a
failed to state the facts constituting extrinsic fraud as a ground. Since collateral attack on their title that is not permitted pursuant to Section
the petitioner failed to avail [of] any of aforementioned remedies in 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, which states that a certificate of
Section 1 without justification and that the ground relied upon was not title cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled, except in a direct
substantiated, this petition has no prima facie merit.7 proceeding in accordance with the law.18

Petitioner Coombs moved for the reconsideration of the above-quoted For their part, respondent BPI Family contends that it should not have
Resolution. She insisted that her petition was grounded on lack of been impleaded in the present petition. It maintains that it is simply a
jurisdiction, not extrinsic fraud. In fact, she explicitly spelled out in her mortgagee in good faith and for value in relation to the subject lot
petition that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter in covered by TCT No. 6715. And the present petition seeks to nullify the
LRC Case No. 04-035 because the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. RTC Decision to which the respondent bank was never a party of.
6715 was never lost. Thus, BPI Family claims that the Court has no jurisdiction over it.19

In its assailed Resolution dated May 25, 2010, the Court of Appeals The Issue
denied the said motion and explained that the RTC has jurisdiction
over all proceedings involving title to real property and land registration We are now left to resolve the lone issue of whether or not the Court of
cases. Thus, it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of LRC Case Appeals erred when it dismissed outright petitioner Coombs' petition
No. 04-035. It further held that petitioner Coombs failed to append for annulment of judgment.
affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting her cause of action as
required by Section 4, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. It The Ruling of the Court
cited Veneracion v. Mancilla,8 where it was held that failure to append
the necessary documents may prompt the appellate court to dismiss The petition is meritorious.
the petition outright or deny the same due course. The dispositive
portion of the Resolution reads: The Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed outright the petition for
annulment of judgment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant motion is DENIED.
Accordingly, the instant petition is DISMISSED WITH FINALITY. 9 The grounds for annulment of judgment are set forth in Section 2, Rule
47 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
Hence, the present petition raising the following arguments:
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. The annulment may be based only
First, petitioner Coombs asserts that she was never notified about the on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
proceedings in LRC Case No. 04-035. Being a stranger to the case,
she could not have availed of any of the remedies mentioned in Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could
Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court to question the RTC Decision. have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
She claims that she only found out about the RTC's decision sometime
in March 2005 in the course of paying for real estate taxes due on the Contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, the Petition for
subject property. By that time, the RTC decision had already become Annulment of Judgment filed by petitioner Coombs was clearly
final and executory. Thus, the failure to allege these circumstances is
grounded on lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter of
not fatal to her petition.10 the case, and not extrinsic fraud.
Second, citing the Court's rulings in Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of In her petition, petitioner Coombs averred as follows:
Appeals,11Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals,12Alabang Development
Corporation v. Valenzuela,13 and Demetriou v. Court of
13. Since the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 is not lost or
Appeals,14petitioner Coombs maintains that the RTC did not have
destroyed, but is in fact in the possession of the petitioner, there is no
jurisdiction over the subject matter in LRC Case No. 04-035 because
necessity for the petition filed in the trial court. The Regional Trial Court
the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT sought to be annulled was never
Branch 206 in Muntinlupa City never acquired jurisdiction to entertain
lost and had always been in her possession.15
the petition and order the issuance of a new owner's duplicate
certificate. Hence, the newly issued duplicate of TCT No. 6715 is null
Third, petitioner Coombs insists that she appended all the relevant and void.20
documents to support her Petition for Annulment of Judgment. But she
did not append any witnesses' affidavits because she does not have
Simply stated, petitioner Coombs sought to annul the RTC Decision for
any witness other than herself. Besides, all the facts that may be set
being rendered without jurisdiction. According to her, the RTC did not
out in a separate affidavit are already averred in the present petition.
acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of LRC Case No. 04-035—
Thus, lack thereof should not result in the petition's outright dismissal. 16
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
Ultimately, Coombs prays for the following reliefs:
place, which argument has been upheld by the Court in a catena of
cases that she cited to support her assertion.
1. [T]hat this petition be given due course and that the assailed
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside; To Our mind, the above-stated allegations made out a prima facie case
of annulment of judgment to warrant the Court of Appeals' favorable
2. [T]hat the Honorable Court of Appeals be directed to give due consideration.
course to the petitioner's petition for annulment of judgment,

10
In Manila v. Manzo,21 the Court held that in a petition for annulment of
judgment grounded on lack of jurisdiction, it is not enough that there is
an abuse of jurisdictional discretion. It must be shown that the court IN RE: ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. O-1385, SP. NO.
should not have taken cognizance of the case because the law does 695, BOOK NO. 1-5, PATENTEE - PAULINO P. GOCHECO,
not confer it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. CESARIO GOCHECO, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. FRANCISCO T.
ESTACIO, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.
It is doctrinal that jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject
matter is conferred by law. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 2622 vests Climaco and Azcarraga for petitioner-appellant.
the RTC with jurisdiction over the judicial reconstitution of a lost or Antonio M. Ceniza for oppositors-appellees.
destroyed owner's duplicate of the certificate of title. However, the
Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the subject matter of LRC PAREDES, J.:
Case No. 04-035 was within the RTC's jurisdiction, being a court of
general jurisdiction. Cesario Gocheco is a legitimate son of Paulino P. Gocheco registered
23
owner of a parcel of land, with improve comments, in Margosatubig,
In a long line of cases, the Court has held that the RTC has no Zamboanga del Sur, as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No.
jurisdiction when the certificate sought to be reconstituted was never O-1385 of the Register of Deeds for the said province. The owner's
lost or destroyed but is in fact in the possession of another person. In duplicate copy of the said original certificate of title was lost, and
other words, the fact of loss of the duplicate certificate is jurisdictional. notwithstanding diligent search to ascertain its whereabouts, the said
owner's duplicate copy has not been found. However, in the records of
Thus, petitioner Coombs' mere allegation that the owner's duplicate the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur, the original of the above
copy of TCT No. 7615 was never lost and has in fact always been with number certificate No. O-1385 of title is found intact and complete in
her gave rise to a prima facie case of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over Sp. No. 695, Book No. 1-5 - patentee Paulino P. Gochecocha
the proceedings in LRC Case No. 04-035. This is exactly the situation
a petition for annulment of judgment aims to remedy. On January 18, 1957, Cesario Gocheco, in his capacity as heir of the
registered owner, filed a petition before the trial court to require the
Moreover, the Court of Appeals' dismissal based on technical grounds Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur to issue another owner's
(i.e., failure to allege that she did not avail of a motion for new trial, duplicate copy of the O.C.T. No. O-1385, in lieu of the owners copy
appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies and failure to which was lost, copy of which petition was served to the Register of
append the affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause Deeds, thru the Provincial Fiscal, on April 30, 1957. Francisco T.
of action of her petition) was also erroneous. Estacio and others opposed the petition, claiming that they have been
in continuous, peaceful, lawful, public and adverse possession of the
First, when a petition for annulment of judgment is grounded on lack of property covered by O.C.T. No. O-1385. On June 1, 1957, petitioner
jurisdiction, the petitioner need not allege that the ordinary remedy of replied, stating that the oppositors can not intervene in the petition for
new trial or reconsideration of the judgment sought to be annulled are want of personality Industrial that to allow them to claim ownership
no longer available through no fault of her own. This is because a and/or possession of the subject property would defeat and destroy the
judgment rendered without jurisdiction is fundamentally void. Thus, it indefeasibility of title guaranteed and protected by Act No. 496.
may be questioned any time unless laches has already set in.24
On June 29, 1957 petitioner appeared in Court and submitted his oral
Second, petitioner Coombs in fact was able to attach to her petition and documentary evidence. Notwithstanding notice of hearing served
documents supporting her cause of action. upon them, the oppositors or their counsel failed to appear. On the
same day, however, the trial court entered an order suspending
Verily, our ruling in Veneracion25 required the petitioners to: (a) allege hearing of the petition and required the petitioner to publish within 30
with particularity in their petition the facts and the law relied upon for days his petition or to file a testate or intestate proceeding, and to
annulment as well as those supporting their cause of action, and (b) secure the appointment of a legal representative to the estate of
attach to the original copy of their petition the affidavits of their registered owner and the ultimate declaration of heirs. For failure of
witnesses and documents supporting their cause of action. petitioners to comply with the order, on August 23, 1957, the
oppositors filed an ex-parte motion to dismiss the petition. The Court,
In the present case, petitioner Coombs' Petition for Annulment of instead, on August 24, 1957 gave the petitioner 10 days within which to
Judgment was grounded on lack of jurisdiction. Based on our review of show cause why the petition should not be dismissed. On September
the records, she annexed to her petition the owner's duplicate copy of 3, 1957, petitioner filed his "constancia" manifesting that he was
TCT No. 6715 and the RTC Decision - which sufficiently support the submitting his case, on the evidences adduced in the hearing. On
petition's cause of action. A copy of the TCT alleged (in LRC Case No. September 9, 1957, the trial court dismissed the petition against which
04-035) to have been missing supports the claim that the same was petitioner interposed the present appeal.
never lost. In the same vein, a copy of the RTC Decision, in
conjunction with supporting jurisprudence, supports petitioner Coombs' Petitioner-appellant alleges that the trial court erred (1) in requiring him
averment that said decision was rendered without jurisdiction. Her to publish the petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy
allegations coupled with the appropriate supporting documents give of O.C.T. No. O-1385; (2) in requiring him to secure the appointment of
rise to a prima facie case that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over a legal representative to the estate of the original registered owner,
the subject matter in LRC Case No. 04-035. Paulino P. Gocheco and to obtain a judicial declaration of his lawful
heirs before giving due course to his petition and (3) in dismissing the
As we ruled in Tan Po Chu v. Court of Appeals,26 if allegations of this petition.
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 The petition is only for the issuance of an owner's duplicate copy of
down. Thus, the appellate court erred when it brushed aside this duty O.C.T. No. O-1385, in lieu of the one that was lost. Section 109 of Act
and dismissed the case outright based on a strict interpretation of No. 496, as amended, provides:
technical rules.
SEC. 109. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed or cannot be
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolutions produced by a guarantee, heir, devisee, assignee, or other person
dated April 30, 2009 and May 25, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA- applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration
G.R. SP No. 107949 are SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is directed of any instrument, a suggestion of the fact of such loss or destruction
to REINSTATE the Petition for Annulment of Judgment in CA-G.R. SP may be filed by the registered owner or other person in interest and
No. 107949 and to proceed hearing the same with dispatch. registered. The court may thereupon, upon the petition of the
registered owner or other persons in interest, after notice and hearing
SO ORDERED. direct the issue of a new duplicate certificate, which shall contain a
memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate
11
certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as
the original duplicate for all the purposes of this act.

In view of the existence of the complete record in the Register of


Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur, of the original of the certificate of title in
question, which appears in Book No. 1-5 of the said Register of Deeds'
Office (Exh. A) and of the fact that the present petition is not one for
reconstitution as provided by Republic Act No. 26, there is no necessity
for publishing notice of the hearing thereof. And the petition, coming as
it does, under the provisions of Section 109, aforequoted, there is
likewise no need to first secure the appointment of a legal
representative of the estate and the declaration of the lawful heirs of
the deceased Paulino P. Gocheco. The petition does not at all seek the
distribution of the decedents estate. The owner's duplicate copy to be
issued will be only an owner's duplicate copy of the O.C.T. No. O-1385
and the petitioner is a person in interest is he is a legal heir, according
to his uncontroverted verified petition.

The oppositors-appellees, who had not chosen to file their brief, have
no personality to intervene and their grounds of intervention, namely,
that they have been in public, continuous, peaceful, adverse and lawful
possession of the property is immaterial, impertinent and of no
consequence, in the present proceeding. Their claim of ownership or
possession of the property can be properly instituted in a separate,
independent and ordinary civil action.

IN VIEW HEREOF, the order of June 29, 1957 of the Trial Court,
appealed from, is set aside, and another entered, directing the Register
of Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur, to issue to the petitioner a new
owner's duplicate copy which was lost. With costs on the oppositors-
appellees.

12

Potrebbero piacerti anche