FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 220940, March 20, 2017
JOY VANESSA M. SEBASTIAN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES NELSON C. CRUZ AND CRISTINA P. CRUZ AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Resolutions dated March 13, 20152 and October 9, 20153 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136564 dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment filed by petitioner Joy Vanessa M. Sebastian (Sebastian) before it.
Section 15. If the court, after hearing, finds that the documents presented, as supported by parole evidence or otherwise, are sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, and that petitioner is the registered owner of the property or has an interest therein, that the said certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed, and that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title, an order of reconstitution shall be issued. The clerk of court shall forward to the register of deeds a certified copy of said order and all the documents which, pursuant to said order, are to be used as the basis of the reconstitution. If the court finds that there is no sufficient evidence or basis to justify the reconstitution, the petition shall be dismissed, but such dismissal shall not preclude the right of the party or parties entitled thereto to file an application for confirmation of his or their title under the provisions of the Land Registration Act. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)From the foregoing, it appears that the following requisites must be complied with for an order for reconstitution to be issued: (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title; (c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest therein; (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost and destroyed; and (e) that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title. Verily, the reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land. The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction occurred. RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is sought to be reconstituted has already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens System.22
As early as the case of Strait Times, Inc. v. CA, the Court has held that when the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is, in fact, in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. Reconstitution can be validly made only in case of loss of the original certificate. This rule was reiterated in the cases of Villamayor v. Arante, Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. v. [CA], Eastworld Motor Industries Corporation v. Skunac Corporation, Rodriguez v. Lim, Villanueva v. Viloria, and Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation. Thus, with evidence that the original copy of the TCT was not lost during the conflagration that hit the Quezon City Hall and that the owner's duplicate copy of the title was actually in the possession of another, the RTC decision was null and void for lack of jurisdiction.In this case, Sebastian's petition for annulment of judgment before the CA clearly alleged that, contrary to the claim of Spouses Cruz in LRC Case No. 421, the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. P-41566 was not really lost, as the same was surrendered to her by Lamberto, Nelson's father and attorney-in-fact, and was in her possession all along.25 Should such allegation be proven following the conduct of further proceedings, then there would be no other conclusion than that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of LRC Case No. 421. As a consequence, the Decision dated March 27, 2014 of the RTC in the said case would then be annulled on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
x x x x
In reconstitution proceedings, the Court has repeatedly ruled that before jurisdiction over the case can be validly acquired, it is a condition sine qua non that the certificate of title has not been issued to another person.If a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of new title. The courts simply have no jurisdiction over petitions by (such) third parties for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly registered owners. The existence of a prior title ipso facto nullifies the reconstitution proceedings. The proper recourse is to assail directly in a proceeding before the regional trial court the validity of the Torrens title already issued to the other person.24 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 8-23.
2 Id. at 25-28. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring.
3 Id. at 30-31.
4 Dated July 31, 2014. Id. at 70-78.
5 Id. at 66-69. Penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr.
6 Id. at 39-42.
7 Dated November 9, 2009. Id. at 38.
8 Id. at 44-45.
9 Id. at 46, including dorsal portion.
10 As evidenced by Capital Gains Tax Return (id. at 47-48), Documentary Stamp Tax Declaration/Return (id. at 49), Tax Clearance Certificate (id. at 50-53), and Certificate Authorizing Registration (id. at 54-55).
11 See id. at 72-73.
12 See id. at 26, 71, and 74.
13 See id. at 75-77.
14 Id. at 25-28.
15 Id. at 28.
16 See id. at 26-28.
17 See motion for reconsideration dated April 20, 2015; id. at 85-90.
18 Id. at 30-31.
19 Id. at 8-23.
20Spouses Paulino v. CA, 735 Phil. 448, 459 (2014), citing Hilado v. Chavez, 482 Phil. 104, 133 (2004).
21 Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS CERTIFICATES OF TITLE LOST OR DESTROYED" (September 25, 1946).
22Republic v. Tuastumban, 604 Phil. 491, 504-505 (2009).
23 Supra note 20.
24 Id. at 459-460 and 462; citations omitted.
25 See rollo, pp. 72 and 76.
26 Section 5, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court reads:Section 5. Action by the court. - Should the court find no substantial merit in the petition, the same may be dismissed outright with specific reasons for such dismissal.
Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, the same shall be given due course and summons shall be served on the respondent.