FIRST DIVISION

Agenda: July 23, 2018

Item No. 15
Recommendation: DYPET; NRE; SEE RES

SHAMMAH REAL ESTATE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, rep. by iys

President, ERIC LIM, ET AL. vs. ESTATE OF PEDRO N. ROA, SR., rep. by
its Estate Manager, BENJAMIN G. TIEMPO (GR NO. 239733)
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Petition for Review on Certiorari

(Rule 45)

In 1977, Pedro Roa bought a parcel of land from Jose Estoque, the
grandfather of respondent Eddie Estoque Cabaluna. At the time of the sale, the
land was not covered by a certificate of title. Jose Estoque, however, was able
to secure a free patent over it (OCT P-1602). In view of the sale to Pedro, Jose
surrendered the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT P-1602 to Pedro. Jose and
Pedro died in the 1980s without formally transferring OCT O-1620 in the name
of Pedro. After some time, the heirs of Pedro learned that the heirs of Jose filed
a petition for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of OCT P-1602 on
the ground that it was lost. The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs of Jose
and a new owner’s duplicate copy of OCT P-1602 was issued in their favor.
Thereafter, the land was sold to respondent Shammah Real Estate and
Development Corporation (Shamma) and the title was transferred to its name.

Petitioner then filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47

of the Rules of Court against the decision of the trial court on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner averred that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case because the owner’s copy of OCT P-1620 was not, in
fact, lost, but had been in the possession of petitioner all along.

The CA (penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and

concurred in by Associate Justices Ronaldo B. Martin and Perpetua T.
Atal-Paño) GRANTED the petition. The CA agreed with the contention of
petitioner that the trial court could not have acquired jurisdiction over the case
because the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT P-1602 was in possession of
petitioner, whose predecessor had purchased the land from Jose. The CA held
that the presentation by petitioner of said original owner’s duplicate copy
showed to the court its physical existence. Thus fact was unrebutted by
respondents. The CA also held that the lack of notice to petitioner about the
case before the trial court constitutes extrinsic fraud. The CA noted that
respondent Estoque failed to state in its petition that the property was already
sold to petitioner.

The CA, however, held that it cannot rule categorically on the validity of
the TCT issued in the name of petitioner Shammah, considering that it would
have to assess first whether Shammah was a purchaser in good faith and for
value, and therefore entitled to the property covered by the TCT.

Hence, this petition which argues that the CA erred in annulling the
order of the trial court which granted the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate
copy of OCT P-1602.

Recommendation: DYPET; NRE; See Res

 RESOLUTION

After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the
Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated November 9, 2017 and Resolution dated
April 26, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 05720-MIN for failure to sufficiently show
that the CA committed any reversible error in annulling the order of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 41 in Miscellaneous
Case No. 2010-18.

Notably, the CA held that the presentation by respondent of the owner’s

duplicate of OCT P-1602 showed to the court its physical existence and
respondent’s fact of possession of the same. In addition, the authenticity and
genuineness of said owner’s duplicate of OCT P-1602 have not been disputed.
Well-settled is the rule that if an owner’s duplicate copy of a certificate of title
has not been lost but is in fact in possession of another person, the
reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has not acquired
jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Court finds that in violation of A.M. 17-12-09-SC, the

petition lacks P1,000.00 for the Sheriff’s Trust Fund.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision November 9, 2017

and Resolution dated April 26, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 05720-MIN are
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.