FACTS: Private Respondent Regino Pealosa allegedly lost his owners duplicate of two land titles (TCT No. T-3767 and T-28301). He filed a verified petition before the RTCTacloban for the issuance of new owners duplicates. Thereafter, the RTC granted the petition and declared the lost titles (T-3767 and T-28301) as null and void and ordering the ROD-Tacloban City to issue to Strait times, new owners duplicates of said titles. Said judgment became final and executory on June 7, 1994. Subsequently, on October 10, 1994, Strait Times caused a Notice of Adverse Claim to be annotated on T28301. Strait Times claims that it bought the Lot covered by T28301 from Conrado Callera who, purchased it from Regino Penalosa in whose name T-28301 was registered. Its duly authorized representative, Atty. Rafael Iriarte, had been in possession of the said lot with the owners duplicate of T-28301 since August 14, 1984. Strait Times thus seeks to annul and set aside the Order of the RTC with respect to the issuance of a new owners duplicate of T-28301 on the ground of extrinsic fraud. Strait Times argues that the allegedly lost duplicate certificate of title has been in the possession of Atty. Iriarte all the while. They claim that the RTC had no jurisdiction to issue a new title because the original title was not lost. Regino Penalosa on the other hand counters that jurisdiction over judicial reconstitution of lost or destroyed title is vested in the RTC under Sec. 110, BP Blg. 1529, in relation to RA 26.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC has no jurisdiction to issue a new
title since the original title was not lost. YES. RTC HAS NO JURISDICTION. (W/N the RTC had jurisdiction to issue the aforementioned Order. NO.) HELD: It has been established in the case of Serra Serra vs CA that if a certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted title is void and the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. In the present case, it is undisputed that the allegedly lost owners duplicate certificate of title was all the while in the possession of Atty. Iriarte, who even submitted it as evidence. Indeed, Regino Penalosa has not controverted the genuineness and authenticity of the said certificate of title. These unmistakably show that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to order the issuance of a new duplicate, and the certificate issued is itself void. Indeed, Respondent Court, private respondent and the solicitor general invoke the suspicious nature of petitioner's claim of title over the land in dispute in order to bar the application of the said cases. The matter of title, however, will have to be determined in a more appropriate action, not in an action for the issuance of the lost owner's duplicate certificate of title, or in a proceeding to annul the certificate issued in consequence of such proceeding. The reconstitution of a title is simply the reissuance of a new duplicate certificate of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. It does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Possession of a lost certificate is not necessarily equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. The certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is merely an evidence of title over a particular property.
Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Anglo California National Bank (Crocker-Anglo National Bank), As Treasurer For Calamba Sugar Estate, Inc. G.R. No. L-12476 January 29, 1960 Facts