SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 222916, July 24, 2019 ]

HEIRS OF SPOUSES GERVACIO A. RAMIREZ AND MARTINA
CARBONEL, REPRESENTED BY CESAR S. RAMIREZ AND ELMER
R. ADUCA, PETITIONERS, VS. JOEY ABON AND THE REGISTER
OF DEEDS OF NUEVA VIZCAYA, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J: 

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] (Petition) under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court filed by petitioners Heirs of Spouses Gervacio A. Ramirez and
Martina Carbonel (Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez), as represented by Cesar S. Ramirez
(Cesar) and Elmer R. Aduca (Elmer), against respondents Joey T. Abon (Abon) and
the Register of Deeds of Nueva Vizcaya (RD), assailing the Decision[2] dated July 29,
2015 (assailed Decision) and Resolution[3] dated February 15, 2016 (assailed
Resolution) rendered by the Court of Appeals, Former Fourteenth Division (CA,
Former 14th Division) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132961.

The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings

As narrated by the CA, Former 14th Division in its assailed Decision, and as culled
from the records of the instant case, the essential facts and antecedent proceedings
of the case are as follows:

[The petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez] allege that Original Certificate of Title
No. T-4480[4] (OCT, for brevity) is registered in the names of the late spouses
Gervacio Ramirez and Martina Carbonel [(Sps. Ramirez)] and covers a 1,266-
square meter lot (Lot 1748) located in Barrio Sta. Lucia, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya
[(subject property)]. On May 30, 1978, Angel Abon, the father of [respondent
Abon], requested the [RD] to issue a new owner's duplicate of the OCT on the basis
of a document denominated as "Confirmation of Previous Sale"[5] (CPS, for brevity)
whereby the [Sps. Ramirez] had allegedly sold Lot 1748 to him (Angel). Using the
new owner's duplicate of the OCT, Angel was able to segregate a 135-square meter
portion [(Lot 1748-A)] from Lot 1748 and obtain title thereto-Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-50359[6] (TCT, for brevity). In June 2013, [the petitioners Heirs of the
Sps. Ramirez] were furnished a copy of the CPS. Having been informed that
respondent [Abon] would use the CPS to transfer title to the rest of Lot 1748, [the
petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez] filed a [C]omplaint[7] [for Annulment of
Confirmation of Previous  Sale,  Issuance of another Owner's Duplicate Copy of OCT
No. 4480, Damages with Prayer for Issuance  of Preliminary  Mandatory 
Injunction]  to  have  said  CPS annulled on the ground of forgery. Unfortunately,
the [Regional Trial Court of Nueva Vizcaya (RTC), Branch 27] dismissed the
complaint motu proprio for lack of jurisdiction. [The petitioners Heirs of the Sps.
Ramirez]  filed  a  certiorari  petition[8] [before the  CA,  Fourth  (4th) Division],
docketed as CA G.R. CV No. 131624. [According to the Case Status Inquiry System
of the CA, on May 2, 2014, the CA, 4th Division rendered a Decision[9] denying the
petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' certiorari petition for lack of merit. On
September 29, 2014, the CA, Special Former 4th Division issued a
Resolution[10] denying the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' Motion for
Reconsideration. As indicated by the Entry of Judgment,[11] the Decision and
Resolution of the CA, 4th Division and Special Former 4th Division, respectively in
CA-G.R. SP No. 131624  became  final  and  executory  on November 1,  2014.]
Meanwhile, on July 5, 2013, respondent [Abon] filed before the [RTC, Branch 28], a
petition[12] for reconstitution [(Petition for Reconstitution)] of the lost owner's
duplicate of the OCT. [The case was docketed as LRC No. 6847.] Respondent
[Abon] alleged in his petition that his father, Angel Abon, acquired the lot covered
by said OCT under the CPS and [caused the subdivision of 135 square meters of the
subject property, with TCT No. T-50359 covering the said subdivided portion of the
subject property having been issued. Respondent Abon further alleged that his
mother, Nellie T. Abon, left for Canada sometime in 2006 and entrusted to him the
owner's duplicate of OCT No. 4480, which he kept in his cabinet. Respondent Abon
then alleged that when his mother arrived in the Philippines in January 2013, she
requested the former to bring out the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 4480 for
purposes of an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Angel. However, respondent
Abon could not find the said owner's duplicate copy in his cabinets. Respondent
Abon allegedly exerted diligent efforts to look for the owner's duplicate copy to no
avail. Respondent Abon then executed an Affidavit of Loss[13] and had the same
registered with the RD. x x x

On October 4, 2013, the RTC, Branch 28 issued its Decision[14] granting respondent

Abon's petition, ordering the RD to issue a new owner's duplicate copy of OCT No.
4480 in lieu of the lost one.

The RTC, Branch 28's aforesaid Decision was not subjected to appeal. Hence, as
indicated in the Certificate of Finality[15] dated November 19, 2013, the Decision
dated October 4, 2013 became final and executory.

On December 3, 2013, the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez filed a Petition for
Annulment of Judgment[16]under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the CA,
Former 14th Division. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 132961.]

[The petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez] further allege that the CPS does not
state the area bought by Angel Abon from the spouses Ramirez and respondent
[Abon]'s claim that the lot is owned by his parents is belied by the OCT itself which
shows that the owners thereof are the spouses Ramirez. [The petitioners Heirs of
the Sps. Ramirez] argue that if the intention under the CPS was to transfer the
entire lot to Angel Abon then the title should have been totally cancelled and a new
one issued in lieu thereof; however, the CPS was annotated on the OCT and the
TCT was issued to cover only a 135-square meter portion of the lot.

[The petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez] finally contend that the [RTC, Branch
28] abused its discretion in granting respondent [Abon]'s petition for want of
jurisdiction. Citing Sec. 12 of Republic Act (RA) No. 26 which requires that the
petition for reconstitution shall be filed by the registered owner, his assigns, or any
person having an interest in the property, [the petitioners Heirs of the Sps.
Ramirez] contend that the [H]eirs of [S]pouses Ramirez were neither included as
petitioners nor notified and this shows respondent [Abon]'s illicit desire to
appropriate the entire lot. [The petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez] further allege
that respondent [Abon] did not comply with the jurisdictional requirements of RA 26
thus: 1) proof of publication of the petition; 2) proof of posting of the petition; 3)
name of the registered owner; 4) names of the occupants or persons in possession
of the property; 5) names of the owners of adjoining properties and all other
interested persons; and 6) the date when persons having interest must appear and
file their objections to the petition.[17]

The Ruling of the CA, Former 14th Division

In the assailed Decision, the CA, Former 14th Division denied the petitioners Heirs of
the Sps. Ramirez' Petition for Annulment of Judgment for lack of merit. The
dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.[18]

In sum, the CA, Former 14th Division held that there was no valid ground for the
annulment of the RTC, Branch 28's Decision dated October 4, 2013, finding that
"the RTC-Br. 28 had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition in LRC No.
6748."[19]

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez filed their Motion for
Reconsideration[20] dated September 1, 2015, which was denied by the CA, Former
14th Division in the assailed Resolution.

Hence, the instant appeal before the Court.

Respondent Abon filed his Comment[21] dated November 12, 2016, to which the
petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez responded to with their Reply to
Comment[22] dated March 3, 2016.

Issue
Stripped to its core, the sole issue to be decided by the Court in the instant case is
whether the CA, Former 14th Division erred in denying the petitioners Heirs of the
Sps. Ramirez' Petition for Annulment of Judgment.

The Court's Ruling

Upon exhaustive review of the facts and the law surrounding the instant case, the
Court finds the instant Petition meritorious.

It must be emphasized that the central issue in the instant case is whether there is
any ground under Rule 47 to annul the RTC, Branch 28's final and executory
Decision dated October 4, 2013, which ordered the RD to issue a new owner's
duplicate copy of OCT No. 4480 in favor of respondent Abon.

Under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the remedy of annulment of judgment "is
resorted to in cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through
no fault of the petitioner, and is based on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud, and
lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process."[23] According to Section 3 of Rule 47, if
based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its
discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or
estoppel.

In the instant case, the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez maintain that the RTC,
Branch 28 did not acquire jurisdiction over LRC Case No. 6847.

Jurisprudence holds that Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529 "is

the law applicable in petitions for issuance of new  owner's duplicate  certificates of
title which are lost or stolen or destroyed."[24]

To clarify, in the instant case, what has been lost is the owner's duplicate copy of
the subject OCT, and not the original copy of the OCT on file with the RD. As held
in Billote v. Solis,[25] "[a] reading of the provisions clearly reveals that Sections 18
and 19 of RA 26 applies only in cases of reconstitution of lost or
destroyed original certificates of title on file with the Register of Deeds,
while Section 109 of PD 1529 governs petitions for the issuance of new
owner's duplicatecertificates of title which are lost or destroyed."[26] Hence, the
petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' original position in their Petition for
Annulment of Judgment that RA 26 applies in the instant case, a theory they
entirely abandoned in the instant Petition, is incorrect.

Section 109 of PD 1529, which is the applicable law in the instant case, reads:

SEC. 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate.—In case of loss or

theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be
sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of
the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is
discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by
a person applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of
any instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be
filed by the registered owner or other person in interest and registered.

Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the
court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new
duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is
issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to
like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as
such for all purposes of this decree.[27]

As explained by the CA, Former 14th Division in the assailed Decision, the

requirements for the replacement of a lost owner's duplicate certificate of title can
be summarized in the following manner:

The requirements for the replacement of lost owner's duplicate certificate of title
may be summarized, thus: a) the registered owner or other person in interest shall
send notice of the loss or destruction of the owner's duplicate certificate of title to
the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss
or destruction is discovered; b) the corresponding petition for the replacement of
the lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate shall then be filed in court and
entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered; c) the
petition shall state under oath the facts and circumstances surrounding such loss or
destruction; and d) the court may set the petition for hearing after due notice to
the Register of Deeds and all other interested parties as shown in the memorandum
of encumbrances noted in the original or transfer certificate of title on file in the
office of the Register of Deeds; and e) after due notice and hearing, the court may
direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate which shall contain a memorandum
of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost or destroyed certificate and shall in all
respects be entitled to the same faith and credit as the original duplicate.[28]

In the instant case, it is not disputed that respondent Abon sent a notice of loss of
the owner's duplicate certificate of the subject OCT to the RD in the form of an
Affidavit of Loss dated June 3, 2013 executed by respondent Abon under oath,
detailing the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss of the owner's duplicate
certificate. With the RD being duly notified of respondent Abon's Affidavit of Loss,
the fact of execution of the said notice was entered into the Memorandum of
Encumbrances[29] of the subject OCT as Entry No. 2013003397.

With respect to the notice and due hearing requirement, it is likewise not disputed
that a copy of respondent Abon's Petition for Reconstitution, together with a copy of
RTC, Branch 28's Order[30] dated July 17, 2013, was publicly posted, as certified by
the RTC's Office of the Clerk of Court in its Certification[31] dated August 23, 2013.
Moreover, it is not disputed that copies of the aforementioned documents were
furnished to the RD, the Land Registration Authority (LRA), and the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor. A Notice of Hearing[32] dated August 23, 2013 was likewise
issued by the RTC, Branch 28.

Nevertheless, it is also not disputed that the subject OCT remains to be

registered in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners
Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez, i.e., the Sps. Ramirez. In other words, regardless of
the sale of the subject property in favor of the father of respondent Abon,
Angel, the registered owners of the subject property remained to be the
Sps. Ramirez, aside from the 135-square meter portion of the subject property
that was subdivided and now covered by TCT No. T-50359 registered in the name
of Angel. It is similarly not in dispute that the Notice of Hearing was not sent to
the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez. Otherwise stated, the petitioners
Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez were not notified of the Petition for
Reconstitution.

Therefore, the critical question now redounds to whether the petitioners Heirs of the
Sps. Ramirez, being the successors-in-interest of the registered owners of the
subject property, should be considered interested parties that should have been
notified of the Petition for Reconstitution proceedings.

The Court answers in the affirmative.

According to Section 41 of PD 1529, "[t]he owner's duplicate certificate of title shall

be delivered to the registered owner or to his duly authorized representative."
Because the owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title is given to and possessed
by the registered owner, ordinarily, when an owner's duplicate copy is lost or
destroyed, it is the registered owner who files the petition for reconstitution. In
such a situation, other persons who have an interest in the property, such as
mortgagees, must be notified of the proceedings. This is to amply protect their
interests and to ensure that the encumbrances evidencing these interests, which
are annotated in the owner's duplicate copy, will be carried over to the
reconstituted owner's duplicate copy.

However, Section 109 of PD 1529 also contemplates a situation wherein the petition

for reconstitution is filed by another person having an interest in the property who
is not the registered owner. In other words, when an owner's duplicate certificate of
title is lost or destroyed, a person who is a transferee of the ownership over the
property, who is not necessarily the registered owner, may also file the petition for
reconstitution. Similarly, in this situation, the other persons having interest in the
property should be notified of the proceedings. In this situation, the registered
owner must also be duly notified of the proceedings. By his or her very status as
registered owner, the latter is an interested party in the petition for reconstitution
case.

The registered owner is an interested party in the petition for reconstitution case
because, as held by the Court in Reyes v. Reyes,[33] "the owner of the land in
whose favor and in whose name said land is registered and inscribed in the
certificate of title has a more preferential right to the possession of the
owner's duplicate than one whose name does not appear in the certificate
and has yet to establish his right to the possession thereof."[34]

While it is true that registration does not vest title and it is merely evidence of such
title,[35] a Torrens certificate, as compared to a mere deed evidencing a contract of
sale or any other private document, is still the best evidence of ownership over
registered land.[36] Such title is entitled to respect and great weight until someone
else can show a better right to the lot.[37] The Court has previously held that a
certificate of registration accumulates in one document a precise and correct
statement of the exact status of the fee held by its owner which, in the absence of
fraud, is the evidence of title showing exactly the owner's real interest over the
property covered thereby.[38] Therefore, the person who is registered as the owner
of the property in a certificate of title is presumed to be the owner of such property.
Needless to say, the presumed owner of the property is, at the very least, an
interested party. Since Section 41 of PD 1529 mandates that the owner's duplicate
certificate of title shall be delivered to the registered owner, the latter is presumed
to be in possession thereof. Thus, the registered owner will be in the best position
to account for the whereabouts of the owner's duplicate certificate.

The rationale of requiring the notification of the registered owner in a petition for
the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate of title is not
hard to understand.

With the legal presumption that the registered owner is the owner of the property,
thus affording him preferential right over the owner's duplicate, duly notifying him
would prevent a person who wrongfully purports to be the owner of the property to
commit fraud. It would offer the registered owner sufficient opportunity to contest
the supposed interest of the person filing the petition for reconstitution. The rule on
the mandatory notification of the registered owner in a petition for reconstitution of
a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate filed by another person who is not
the registered owner is to ensure an orderly proceeding and to safeguard the due
process rights of the registered owner. It prevents the commission of fraud.

Therefore, being the registered owners of the subject property, the Sps. Ramirez,
whose rights are now transferred by succession to the petitioners Heirs of the Sps.
Ramirez, should have, at the very least, been given sufficient opportunity to be
heard in the Petition for Reconstitution.

Respondent Abon, in arguing that the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez have no
more interest in the subject property, puts much emphasis in the CPS to show that
the Sps. Ramirez already completely divested their interest in the subject property
when they sold the same to Angel.

This argument is misplaced.

As already explained above, persons registered as owners in a certificate of title, by

their very status as registered owners, are interested parties in a petition for the
reconstitution of a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate of title because
they are legally presumed to be the owners of the property. To restate once more,
while registration does not vest title and it is merely evidence of such title, a
Torrens certificate is still the best evidence of ownership over registered land as
compared to a mere deed evidencing a contract of sale. The registered owner has a
preferential right to the possession of the owner's duplicate than one whose name
does not appear in the certificate.

This does not mean however that persons who are not registered owners of the
property cannot successfully seek for the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed
owner's duplicate certificate of title. If the court is satisfied that the registered
owner has indeed completely divested his/her interest in the property, that the
requesting party has sufficient interest in the subject property, and that the owner's
duplicate certificate of title is indeed lost or destroyed, then the petition for
reconstitution should be granted in favor of the requesting party having interest in
the subject property.

Be that as it may, in such a situation, if the certificate of title was not yet
transferred in the name of the requesting party and is still registered in the name of
the original owner, owing to the established doctrine that a Torrens certificate is
still the best evidence of ownership over registered land, the original registered
owner, having preferential status over the owner's duplicate, is still considered an
interested party that should be notified in so far as the petition for reconstitution is
concerned. This will ensure that the registered owner will have sufficient
opportunity to contest the claim of the requesting party.

Neither can respondent Abon argue that the final and executory Decision of the CA,
4th Division in CA G.R. CV No. 131624, which affirmed the denial of the petitioners
Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' Complaint for Annulment of the CPS, incontrovertibly and
irrefutably established beyond dispute the transfer of the subject property via a
contract of sale between the Sps. Ramirez and Angel.

To recall, the dismissal of the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' Complaint was
not due to any categorical and definitive finding on the veracity and validity of the
CPS. The dismissal of the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' Complaint was
solely due to lack of jurisdiction. In fact, the dismissal of the petitioners Heirs of the
Sps. Ramirez' Complaint was a motu proprio dismissal.

Further, in his Comment, respondent Abon relies heavily on the case of Office of
the Court Administrator v. Judge Matas[39] which held that the notice requirement
under Section 109 of PD 1529 is sent to the Register of Deeds and only to those
persons who have an interest in the property "as shown in the Memorandum of
encumbrances at the back of the original or transfer certificate of title on file in the
office of the Register of Deeds. From a legal standpoint, there are no other
interested parties who should be notified, except those abovementioned since they
are the only ones who may be deemed to have a claim to the property involved."[40]
It is an opportune time for the Court to clarify its prior holding that only persons
who have an interest in the property as shown in the memorandum of
encumbrances can be considered persons in interest that must be notified in a
petition for reconstitution of a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate of title.

In Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Matas, the alleged owner of the
subject property therein, i.e., J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises (J.K.
Mercado), was alleging that the respondent Judge therein, i.e., Judge Jesus V.
Matas of the Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao del Norte, Branch 2, acted
without jurisdiction when it failed to notify J.K. Mercado as regards the petition for
the issuance of a new owner's duplicate of the subject certificate of title.

Agreeing with the findings of the investigating Justice therein,[41] the Court agreed
that J.K. Mercado was not an interested party because its claim of ownership was
not indicated whatsoever in the certificate of title. The only piece of evidence
presented by J.K. Mercado was a private Memorandum of Agreement that was
never inscribed in the subject certificate of title and filed with the Register of
Deeds:

The only piece of evidence that would show the alleged ownership of the J.K.
Mercado over the four (4) parcels of land, subject of Misc. Case No. 1626 is the
alleged private Memorandum of Agreement entered on November 19, 1981 by and
between George Mercado and J.K. Mercado. Said agreement was never entered on
the Certificate of Titles in the name of their original/former owners on file with the
Register of Deeds at the time of the filing or pendency of Misc. Case No. 1626. As
such, how can private complainant expect to be notified.[42]

In short, in the aforesaid case, J.K. Mercado had no registered interest whatsoever

in the subject property therein that would justify its status as an interested party in
the petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of the subject
title. J.K. Mercado was not the registered owner. Its only claim of ownership over
the subject property therein was a private, unregistered document. In sharp
contrast, in the instant case, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners Heirs of
the Sps. Ramirez are the very registered owners of the subject certificate of title,
the owner's duplicate certificate of which is sought to be reconstituted by
respondent Abon.

Hence, it is clear from the foregoing that the Court's holding in Office of the Court
Administrator v. Judge Matas should not be understood as excluding as an
interested party the very person or entity whose name is indicated in the OCT or
TCT as the registered owner. Verily, the inscription of the name of the owner on the
OCT or TCT is the proof of the registration of his/her interest in the property. The
Court's holding in Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Matassimply means
that an alleged party-in-interest, whose interest in the property is not registered,
not inscribed on the certificate of title, and is based on a mere private document,
should not be considered an interested party that must be notified in a petition for
reconstitution case.
Stated differently,  the  actual  registered owner appearing on the certificate of title
is always an interested party that must be notified by the court hearing the petition
for reconstitution. Otherwise, such court does not acquire jurisdiction to hear and
try the petition for reconstitution case.

To restate, the instant ruling of the Court does not mean that respondent Abon
cannot successfully seek the reconstitution of the owner's duplicate certificate of
the subject OCT. He can. But the RTC hearing his application must notify the parties
who appear on the OCT to be the registered owners. And if the RTC, after such
notice and hearing, is satisfied that the Sps. Ramirez had truly divested all of their
interest in the subject property, that respondent Abon has sufficiently established
his interest over the subject property, that the owner's duplicate certificate of title
was indeed lost, and that the jurisdictional requirements
under Section 109 of PD 1529 had been sufficiently met, then the Petition for
Reconstitution should be granted in favor of respondent Abon. However, without
properly notifying the estate of the Sps. Ramirez, who continue to be the registered
owners of the subject property, the RTC fails to acquire jurisdiction over the Petition
for Reconstitution.

Therefore, as the RTC, Branch 28 failed to acquire jurisdiction over LRC Case No.
6847 because of its failure to notify the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez, the
latter's Petition for Annulment of Judgment is meritorious.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 29, 2015
and Resolution dated February 15, 2016 rendered by the Court of Appeals, Former
Fourteenth Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 132961 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 28's
Decision dated October 4, 2013 in LRC Case No. 6847 is
hereby ANNULLED without prejudice to the refiling of another petition for
reconstitution of a lost owner's duplicate certificate of title with proper notice to all
interested parties.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

[ G.R. No. 181057, June 17, 2015 ]

JOSEFINA C. BILLOTE, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEYS-
IN-FACT, WILLIAM C. BILLOTE AND SEGUNDO BILLOTE,
PETITIONER, VS. IMELDA SOLIS, SPOUSES MANUEL AND
ADELAIDA DALOPE, SPOUSES VICTOR AND REMEDIOS
BADAR, REGISTER OF DEEDS (LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN),
 AND HON. MELITON EMUSLAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH
47, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, URDANETA CITY,
RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.: 

Before the Court is a partial petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court seeking to partly reverse and set aside the Decision[1] and
Resolution,[2] dated May 24, 2007 and December 5, 2007, respectively, of the Court
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 85583 which declared the Decision[3] dated
February 24, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in PET. Case No. U-1959 null
and void.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

The property subject of the instant petition is a parcel of land consisting of an area
of 6,894 square meters, situated in the Municipality of Urdaneta, Province of
Pangasinan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 15296 issued under
the names of the spouses Hilario Solis and Dorotea Corla,[4] who had begotten three
(3) children, namely, Ludovico Solis, and respondents Imelda Solis and Adelaida
Solis-Dalope.[5] After Hilario's death on November 15, 1955, Dorotea contracted a
subsequent marriage with Segundo Billote, with whom she had two (2) children,
namely, petitioner Josefma C. Billote and William C. Billote.

On the claim that the owner's duplicate copy of the subject property's title was
missing, respondent Imelda filed before the RTC of Urdaneta City on December 16,
2002 a Petition for the Issuance of New Owner's Duplicate Certificate of TCT No.
15296.[6] Among several other documentary evidence, respondent Imelda
submitted a copy of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased
Person with Quitclaim dated July 13, 2002 whereby Dorotea allegedly conveyed her
share in the subject property to respondents Imelda and Adelaida,[7] as well as an
Affidavit of Loss duly notifying the Register of Deeds of the title's loss.[8]

On February 24, 2003, the trial court granted the petition, finding that the
jurisdictional requirements of Section 109[9] of Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 1529 have been duly complied with.[10] Upon receipt of the new owner's
duplicate copy, respondents Imelda and Adelaida registered the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement, pursuant to which TCT No. 15296 was cancelled and a
new one, TCT No. 269811,[11] was issued.[12]

On November 25, 2003, respondents Imelda and Adelaida executed a Deed of

Absolute Sale,[13] conveying the entire subject property, including the 1/2 conjugal
share of Dorotea, in favor of respondent spouses Victor and Remedios Badar
(Spouses Badar). Pursuant thereto, another title, TCT No. 274696,[14] was issued in
the name of the spouses.

On July 30, 2004, petitioner, through her Attorneys-in-Fact, William Billote and
Segundo Billote, filed before the CA a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment[15] seeking to annul the Decision of the RTC granting respondent Imelda's
Petition for the Issuance of New Owner's Duplicate Certificate of TCT No. 15296.
Petitioner alleged that on July 28, 2001, Dorotea executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale[16] conveying her 1/2 conjugal share in the subject property in favor of
petitioner. She stated that before she left for the United States in the same year,
she and her mother Dorotea entrusted to William the owner's duplicate copy of TCT
No. 15296.[17] Petitioner also alleged that in July 2002, respondents Imelda and
Adelaida asked a certain Atty. Ramon Veloria to assist them in transferring the
entire subject property in their names. Dorotea told them, however, that she had
already sold her conjugal share to petitioner. Despite this, respondents Imelda and
Adelaida nevertheless requested the owner's duplicate copy from William, who
refused on account of lack of any instruction from their mother and the need for the
registration of the Deed of Sale executed in favor of petitioner. In April 2004, upon
hearing that his sister, respondent Imelda, was able to buy a piece of property
notwithstanding her poor financial capacity, William went to Atty. Veloria's office
wherein he discovered that the property in question was the subject of a Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate. William then went to the Register of Deeds and
learned that TCT No. 15296 had already been cancelled despite the fact that the
owner's duplicate copy was in his possession. Thus, petitioner sought the
nullification of the RTC's decision ordering the issuance of the new owner's copy of
title for lack of jurisdiction in view of the fact that the owner's duplicate of title was
not lost, but had all the while been in the possession of her brother, William.

On May 24, 2007, the CA partially granted the petition for annulment of judgment
in the following wise:
When spouses Badar bought subject property, it was already covered by TCT No.
269811 in the names of Imelda and Adelaida. Although the second owner's
duplicate of TCT No. 15296 was void the same having been issued by a court which
did not have jurisdiction to order the issuance of a new owner's copy in lieu of an
owner's duplicate which was not lost but was in the possession of another person,
(Straight Times, Inc. vs. CA, 294 SCRA 714; Easterworld Motor Industries Corp. vs.
Skunac Corp., 478 SCRA 420) and although TCT No. 269811 in the names of
Imelda Solis and Adelaida Dalope was fraudulently secured, such facts cannot
prejudice the right of spouses Victor and Remedios Badar absent any showing that
they had any knowledge or participation in such irregularity. Aforenamed spouses
cannot be obliged to look beyond the vendor's certificate of title which appeared to
be valid on its face and devoid of any annotation of any adverse claim. Spouses
Badar appear to be purchasers in good faith and for value as they bought the
disputed property, without notice that some other person has right or interest over
the same and paid a full price for the same at the time of the purchase or before
they had notice of any claim or interest of some other person therein (Eduarte vs.
Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 391). No valid transfer certificate of title can issue from
a void certificate of title, unless an innocent purchaser for value has intervened
(Pineda vs. CA and Teresita Gonzales, 409 SCRA 438). Established is the rule that
the rights of an innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected
notwithstanding the fraud employed by the sellers in securing their title (Eduarte
vs. CA, supra).

While this Court, therefore, can declare the judgment dated February 24, 2003,
rendered by Branch 47, RTC, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan in PET. Case No. U-1959,
as well as the second owner's duplicate of TCT No. 15296 issued pursuant thereto
null and void for having been issued without jurisdiction, the same cannot be done
relative to TCT No. 274696 issued to the spouses Victor and Remedios Badar,
absent any showing that they purchased the property covered thereby with
knowledge or privity as to any irregularity or fraud employed by the vendors in
securing their title.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED in part. The

decision dated February 24, 2003 issued by Branch 47, RTC, Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan in PET. Case No. U-1959 as well as the second owner's duplicate of TCT
No. 15296 issued pursuant thereto are declared NULL and VOID.

This Court cannot declare nullity of TCT No. 274696 in the names of spouses Victor
and Remedios Badar.

SO ORDERED.[18]
When the appellate court denied petitioner's Partial Motion for Reconsideration,
petitioner filed the instant Partial Petition for Review on Certiorari on January 31,
2008, invoking the following issues:
I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT

DECLARING TCT NO. 269811 IN THE NAMES OF RESPONDENTS SOLIS AND
DALOPE AND TCT NO. 274696 IN THE NAMES OF RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES BADAR
AS NULL AND VOID.

II.

WHETIiER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT

CONDUCTING PROCEEDINGS OR IN NOT REFERRING THE ISSUE ON
RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES BADAR BEING PURCHASERS IN GOOD FAITH FOR VALUE
TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT PURSUANT TO SEC. 6 OF RULE 47 OF THE RULES
OF COURT.
Petitioner asserts that the re-appearance and existence of the owner's duplicate
copy renders the court issuing the decision ordering the issuance of a second
owner's copy devoid of any jurisdiction. In support of her contention, petitioner
cites Sections 18[19] and 19[20] of Republic Act (RA) No. 26[21] as well as several
rulings[22] wherein it has been held that 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 to order the issuance of a
new duplicate title. Thus, while the appellate court correctly declared the decision of
the trial court as well as the second owner's copy issued therefrom null and void,
petitioner maintains that TCT No. 269811 in the names of respondents Imelda and
Adelaida, as well as TCT No. 274696 in the names of respondent spouses Badar,
should have likewise been declared a nullity for having been derived from a void
title.

Moreover, granting that the CA did not have the authority to declare the Spouses
Badar's title null and void, petitioner contends that the appellate court should have
remanded the issue on whether said spouses were innocent purchasers for value to
the RTC, wherein the issue of ownership over the subject property is being
ventilated in Civil Case No. U-8088. According to petitioner, the Spouses Badar are
not innocent purchasers for value considering that they were able to acquire the
subject property from respondents Imelda and Adelaida only after they could not
reach the price originally offered to them by petitioner. Clearly, therefore, the
Spouses Badar had knowledge of petitioner's right to the property. In view of this
alleged bad faith on the part of the spouses, petitioner contends that the appellate
court should have ordered further proceedings to determine the veracity of the
parties' claims to the subject property.

In their Comment, respondents Imelda and Adelaida allege that contrary to

petitioner's contention, it is actually Section109[23] of PD No. 1529 and not Sections
18 and 19 of RA No. 26 that is applicable in this case. According to respondents,
the cited sections of RA No. 26 apply specifically to reconstitution of titles, where
the original copies thereof are lost or destroyed. Here, what was lost was not the
original copy of TCT No. 15296, as can be derived from the fact that the same is
still in the possession of the Register of Deeds, but the owner's duplicate certificate
of title. Thus, what applies herein are not the more stringent requirements provided
in RA No. 26 for reconstitution of lost or destroyed original title but those
of PD No. 1529, which merely require the applicant to submit a sworn statement as
to the fact of loss of the owner's duplicate copy to the Register of Deeds and the
trial court, which will, in turn, direct the issuance of the new duplicate title after
notice and hearing. Considering that petitioner did not appear to have any interest
in the subject property, the Deed of Absolute Sale evidencing her purchase of the
same not being registered or annotated on the title, she did not have any right to
notice of the proceedings. Accordingly, respondents assert that since proper
procedure required by applicable law was observed by the trial court, it had all the
authority to hear and decide their petition, as well as jurisdiction to order the
issuance of the second owner's duplicate copy of title.

Moreover, respondents Imelda and Adelaida refute petitioner's factual allegations,

particularly on the fact that the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 15296 had been in
William's possession all the while. Also, respondents maintain that the filing of the
instant petition is violative of the rule on forum shopping for petitioner had
previously filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Titles, Documents,
Recovery of Ownership and Possession, Damages with Prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and Writ of Injunction docketed as Civil Case No. U-8088
involving the same parties, issues, and causes of action.

For their part, respondent Spouses Badar essentially claim that they are innocent
purchasers for value who relied on the correctness of the certificate of title
presented to them by respondents Imelda and Adelaida. Thus, the appellate court
did not err when it refused to declare the nullity of the title issued to them for there
is no showing that they purchased the property covered thereby with knowledge or
privity as to any fraud employed by respondents Imelda and Adelaida in securing
their title.

The petition is partly meritorious.

At the outset, it must be noted that the applicable law in this case is not Sections
18 and 19 of RA No. 26 but Section 109of PD No. 1529. A reading of the provisions
clearly reveals that Sections 18 and 19 of RA No. 26 applies only in cases of
reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certificates of title on file with the
Register of Deeds, while Section 109 of PDNo. 1529 governs petitions for the
issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title which are lost or destroyed.[24]

This does not mean, however, that this Court can take cognizance of respondents'
assertion that since the trial court applied the correct procedure imposed by law
herein, the trial court necessarily had jurisdiction to order the issuance of the
second owner's duplicate copy of title.

In Manila v. Gallardo-Manzo,[25] this Court explained:

Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the
claim. In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction,
petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an
absolute lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no
jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition
because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter is conferred by law.[26]
Time and again, it has been consistently ruled that when the owner's duplicate
certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another
person, the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the
decision had no jurisdiction.[27] Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of
loss of the original certificate.[28] Thus, the fact of loss of the duplicate certificate is
jurisdictional.[29]

In this case, the appellate court categorically found that the owner's duplicate of
TCT No. 15296 was not, in fact, lost but was in the possession of William Billote all
along.[30] While respondents Imelda and Adelaida, in their Comment, claimed they
did not know the whereabouts of the duplicate, and asserted that William even
admitted that he did not know where the same is, they never refuted such finding
of the CA. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to deviate from the same.
Accordingly, since the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but
was in the possession of William, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title. Hence, the
CA was correct in declaring the decision of the RTC as well as the second owner's
duplicate of title issued pursuant thereto a nullity. It is, therefore, the fact of the
loss or existence of the owner's duplicate certificate, and not whether the process
prescribed by applicable law was successfully complied with, that determines the
presence or lack of jurisdiction of the trial court.

Anent the findings of the CA, however, that since the subject property had already
passed into the hands of spouses Badar, innocent purchasers for value, having
bought the disputed property without notice that some other person has right or
interest over the same, the title issued to them remains valid and cannot be
nullified, the same cannot be conclusively affirmed. The appellate court ruled as
follows:
The property covered by said title, however, passed into the hands of
innocent purchasers for value in the persons of spouses Victor and
Remedios Badar, to whom TCT No. 274696 had already been issued.

When spouses Badar bought subject property, it was already covered by

TCT No. 269811 in the names of Imelda and Adelaida. Although the second
owner's duplicate of TCT No. 15296 was void the same having been issued by a
court which did not have jurisdiction to order the issuance of a new owner's copy in
lieu of an owner's duplicate which was not lost but was in the possession of another
person, (Straight Times, Inc. vs. CA, 294 SCRA 714; Easterworld Motor Industries
Corp. vs. Skunac Corp., 478 SCRA 420) and although TCT No. 269811 in the names
of Imelda Solis and Adelaida Dalope was fraudulently secured, such facts cannot
prejudice the rights of spouses Victor and Remedios Badar absent any
showing that they had any knowledge or participation in such irregularity.
Aforenamed spouses cannot be obliged to look beyond the vendor's certificate of
title which appeared to be valid on its face and devoid of any annotation of any
adverse claim. Spouses Badar appear to be purchasers in good faith and for
value as they bought the disputed property, without notice that some other
person has right or interest over the same and paid a full price for the
same at the time of the purchase or before they had notice of any claim or
interest of some other person therein (Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA
391). No valid transfer certificate of title can issue from a void certificate of title,
unless an innocent purchaser for value has intervened (Pineda vs. CA and Teresita
Gonzales, 409 SCRA 438). Established is the rule that the rights of an innocent
purchaser for value must be respected and protected notwithstanding the fraud
employed by the sellers in securing their title (Eduarte vs. CA, supra).[31]
After a cursory examination of the aforequoted findings, this Court observes that
the conclusion that the spouses Badar were, indeed, innocent purchasers for value,
lacks sufficient basis. As can be gleaned from the foregoing, the CA merely declared
that the spouses appear to be purchasers in good faith without specifying material
evidence supporting such declarations. The fact that the subject property was
already covered by the title issued under the names of respondents Imelda and
Adelaida, by itself, does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the spouses
Badar had no knowledge of some other party's interest over the property. While the
CA cited appropriate doctrines of law, it failed to substantiate them with factual
proofs confirming the same. This Court is, therefore, not prepared to categorically
rule that spouses Badar were, indeed, innocent purchasers for value and are
consequently entitled to the disputed property.
It must be recalled at this point that in a petition for the issuance of a new owner's
duplicate copy of a certificate of title in lieu of one allegedly lost, the RTC, acting
only as a land registration court, has no jurisdiction to pass upon the question of
actual ownership of the Jand covered by the lost owner's duplicate copy of the
certificate of title.[32] Possession of a lost owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of
title 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.[33]

The CA herein was, therefore, limited only to the determination of whether the trial
court had jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy
of a certificate of title in lieu of the one allegedly lost. The only fact that had to be
established was whether or not the original owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of
title is still in existence.[34]Thus, the dispute regarding the issue of ownership over
the subject property as well as whether the Spouses Badar are, in fact, purchasers
in good faith and for value will have to be threshed out in a more appropriate
proceeding, specifically in Civil Case No. U-8088, where the trial court will conduct a
full-blown hearing with the parties presenting their respective evidence to prove
ownership over the subject realty,[35] and not in an action for the issuance of the
lost owner's duplicate certificate of title, nor in a proceeding to annul the certificate
issued in consequence thereof.[36]

Accordingly, respondents' imputation of forum-shopping on the part of petitioner for

having previously filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Titles, Documents,
Recovery of Ownership and Possession docketed as Civil Case No. U-8088 cannot
be given ample consideration. In Demetriou v. Court of Appeals,[37] cited by
petitioner, We held:
Nor was the filing of such a petition forum shopping in violation of Circular
No. 28-91. Private respondents allege that in an action for recovery of
possession of the lands which they had brought against the JB Line in the
Regional Trial Court of Albay (Civil Case No. T-1590), petitioners
intervened and alleged substantially the same facts as those alleged by
them in their petition for annulment of judgment. We have gone over
petitioners' answer in intervention in that case. We find that the allegation of forum
shopping is without basis. While they indeed alleged that private respondent
had obtained a second owner's duplicate of TCT T-65878 knowing that 2/3
of the land covered by the certificate had been sold to them and that the
"2nd owner's copy should be cancelled and recalled considering the fact
that the original is in fact still existing and not lost," the allegation was
made more for the purpose of demanding a partition, recognizing that
private respondent is the owner of 1/3 of the land. Petitioner's
intervention is thus different from their action in the Court of Appeals
which is solely for the purpose of seeking the annulment of the judgment
in CAD Case No. T-1024 granting private respondent's petition for the
issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title.[38]
Similarly, the instant case is merely for the purpose of seeking the annulment of
the trial court's February 24, 2003 Decision granting the Petition for the Issuance of
New Owner's Duplicate Certificate of TCT No. 15296 while the Complaint for
Declaration of Nullity of Titles, Documents, Recovery of Ownership and Possession
in Civil Case No. U-8088 is more for the recovery of ownership and possession of
the subject property. Thus, there is no identity of causes of action which would
result in a violation of the rule against forum-shopping. In Civil Case No. U-8088, it
is incumbent on the trial court to resolve the issue of ownership over the property
in question, taking into consideration the conflicting claims alleged by the parties
supported by their corresponding pieces of evidence. In the instant case for
annulment of judgment, however, petitioner only needed to show the fact that the
owner's duplicate copy was not, in truth, missing in order to determine the lack of
jurisdiction of the trial court resulting in the annulment of judgment thereof. Hence,
the allegation of forum-shopping cannot be sustained for the cause of action in the
former case differs from that of the latter.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The

issue on the determination of ownership over the disputed property
is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 45, wherein
Civil Case No. U-8088 is pending. The Decision and Resolution, dated May 24, 2007
and December 5, 2007, respectively, of the Court Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85583,
are PARTLY AFFIRMED, insofar as they declared the Decision dated February 24,
2003 of the Regional Trial Court in PET Case No. U-1959, as well as the second
owner's duplicate certificate of TCT No. 15296 issued therefrom, null and void.

SO ORDERED.

Brion,* Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 205004, August 17, 2016 ]
SPOUSES ERNESTO IBIAS, SR. AND GONIGONDA IBIAS,
PETITIONERS, VS. BENITA PEREZ MACABEO, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.: 

The Case

G.R. No. 205004 is a petition for review[1] assailing the Decision[2] promulgated on

30 May 2012 as well as the Resolution[3] promulgated on 11 December 2012 by the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 88552. The CA affirmed the
Decision[4] dated 7 March 2006 of Branch 33 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
(RTC) in Civil Case No. 01-102236.

The RTC ruled in favor of respondent Benita Perez Macabeo (Benita) and against
petitioners Spouses Ernesto Ibias, Sr. (Ernesto) and Gonigonda Ibias (collectively,
Spouses Ibias) and ordered the Register of Deeds of Manila to cancel Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 245124 under the name of the Spouses Ibias and
reinstate TCT No. 24605.

The Facts
The CA recited the facts as follows:

[Benita] filed a complaint for annulment of title against [Spouses Ibias] on 12

November 2001. She averred, among others, that she is one of the heirs of Albina
Natividad Y. Perez and Marcelo Ibias, both deceased and registered owners of the
parcel of land covered by [TCT] No. 24605 of the Register of Deeds of Manila. On
13 August 1999, [Ernesto] executed an Affidavit of Loss alleging that the Owner's
Duplicate of TCT No. 24605 was missing among his files. In support of his petition
for reconstitution, he testified that said owner's duplicate [of] title was lost while in
his parents' possession. Such petition was granted and the title was reconstituted,
now TCT No. 245124 under the names of [Spouses Ibias]. For this reason, [Benita]
filed a perjury case against defendant-appellant Ernesto docketed as Criminal Case
No. 348152 pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila.

[Benita] averred that defendant-appellant Ernesto made it appear that the title was
lost or misplaced while in the possession of the registered owners when in truth and
in fact, he knew fully well that said title was in the possession of [Benita]. Proof of
such knowledge was shown by his letter dated 23 July 1999 where he asked
[Benita] for TCT No. 24605, which was in the latter's possession. At the time
defendant-appellant Ernesto executed the Affidavit of Loss and filed his petition for
reconstitution, he knew that the title was intact and in the possession of [Benita].
The issuance of the reconstituted title in favor of [the Spouses Ibias] thus deprived
[Benita] and her other siblings of their right over the subject property.

Defendant-appellant Ernesto countered that he is the registered owner of the land

described in TCT No. 245124. He claimed that he and his late brother Rodolfo are
the only heirs of Marcelo and Albina Ibias. The subject property was acquired and
titled sometime in 1950. He and his late parents have been living in the same
house during the lifetime of the latter. After the death of his parents, he diligently
exerted efforts to locate TCT No. 24605 but [these] attempts proved futile. He
inquired from his half-sister, plaintiff-appellee Benita Macabeo, about the
whereabouts of said title. [Benita] claimed that she was in possession of the title
but asked defendant-appellant Ernesto for the amount of PI 1,000.00 in exchange
for the title and as her share in the property. Defendant-appellant Ernesto paid said
amount, but when he asked for the turnover of the title, [Benita] failed to deliver
the title nor show the document. Defendant-appellant Ernesto was thus convinced
that [Benita] had neither possession nor knowledge of the whereabouts of the title.
Believing in good faith that the title was indeed lost, he executed the Affidavit of
Loss dated 13 August 1999. Thereafter, he instituted a petition for issuance of new
owner's duplicate certificate of title. [Benita] did not oppose or object to the
petition. Eventually, the new TCT No. 245124 was issued in favor of [Spouses Ibias]
by the Register of Deeds.[5]

The RTC's Ruling

The RTC ruled in favor of Benita.

The RTC stated that Ernesto's assertions did not coincide with its findings. When
Ernesto filed a petition for reconstitution on 19 August 1999, Ernesto claimed that
the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 24605 was lost. However, Ernesto knew that the
title was in Benita's possession. Ernesto himself wrote a letter dated 23 July 1999
to Benita to ask for the title. Prior to this, Ernesto borrowed the title from Benita in
1996 for the connection of his water system to NAWASA.

Ernesto also falsely declared in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with
Waiver of Rights that he and his brother Rodolfo Ibias are the only surviving heirs
of Albina Natividad. Ernesto and Rodolfo actually have four older half-sisters with
their mother Albina: Avelina, Abuendia, Seferiana, and Benita. To the RTC, it is
clear that Ernesto was able to procure the new title in his name through fraudulent
means.

The dispositive portion of the RTC's decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [Benita] and against the
[Spouses Ibias]. The Register of Deeds of Manila is ordered to cause the
cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 245124 under [the] name of
[Spouses Ibias] and REINSTATE TCT No. 24605. The [Spouses Ibias are] ordered to
pay the costs of the suit. The counter-claim is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.[6]
The Spouses Ibias filed a notice of appeal[7] on 19 July 2006. The RTC released an
Order[8] elevating the complete records of the case on 26 July 2006.

The CA's Ruling

The CA dismissed the Spouses Ibias' appeal and affirmed the decision of the RTC.

The CA affirmed, the RTC's findings of fact. Ernesto knew that TCT No. 24605 was
with Benita for safekeeping. Ernesto's 23 July 1999 letter to Benita categorically
stated that he asked for TCT No. 24605 and acknowledged that the TCT was in her
possession. Ernesto wrote:
Sa kadahilanang nabanggit sa itaas ako at ang aking kapatid na si RODOLFO IBIAS
ay tuwiran hinihingi sa iyo ang titulo ng lupa na may No. 24605 na nasa iyong
pag-iingat. x x x[9]
In her letter to Ernesto dated 16 August 1999, Benita explained that the money for
the purchase of the land came from the GSIS death benefit of her sister Abuendia
Natividad Perez (Abuendia). It was Abuendia's wish to put the title of the property
in their mother's name. The name of Ernesto's father, Marcelo, was in TCT No.
24605 only because he was married to Albina. Marcelo had no capacity to buy the
property. The PI 1,000 was for the purpose of including the names of their siblings
Rodolfo Ibias and Avelina Perez. The title was in Benita's possession only because
Albina entrusted it to her. Benita wrote:
Para sa kaalam [sic] mo, totoong matagal nang nasa pag-iingat ko ang kopya ng
titulo ng ating lupa. Hindi ko iyon tinatanggi. Ito'y nasa akin hindi dahil sa gusto ko
itong kamkamin (katulad ng gusto mo ngayong palabasin) kundi dahil sa ito'y
inihabilin sa akin ng ating namatay na inang si ALBINA NATIVIDAD y PEREZ at ito'y
alam mo, aminin mo man o hindi.[10]
The Spouses Ibias did not dispute these letters. The correspondence shows that
Ernesto knew that Benita had the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 24605 in her
possession prior to the filing of the present case. The CA identified the strained
relations between the parties as the reason why Ernesto could not compel Benita to
turn over the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 24605 to him. The CA concluded that
because the Spouses Ibias could not force Benita to give them the title, Ernesto
executed an Affidavit of Loss so as to pull one over on Benita. The tenor of the
correspondence belies the Spouses Ibias' claim of good faith when the Affidavit of
Loss was executed.

Ernesto falsely stated in the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver
of Rights that he and his brother Rodolfo are the only surviving heirs of Albina and
Marcelo. However, in his 23 July 1999 letter, as well as in his pleadings, Ernesto
asserted that he and Benita have the same mother.

Ernesto also impliedly recognized Benita's right over the property when he claimed
to have given her PI 1,000 as her supposed share in the property.

Both Benita's and Ernesto's witnesses testified that Marcelo had no resources to
purchase the land. Flordeliza Natividad, Benita's witness, testified that Abuendia
was the breadwinner of the family and purchased the land on installment. When
Abuendia passed away, her family used her death benefits to make full payment for
the land. Pedro Mercado, Ernesto's witness, testified that Marcelo had not been
working since 1949. Ernesto did not present any evidence to show that Marcelo had
the resources to buy the land.
The CA summarized its findings as follows:

In view of the above documentary and testimonial evidence, the court a quo was
correct in canceling TCT No. 245124 and reinstating TCT No. 24605. There is
preponderance of evidence to prove that [the Spouses Ibias] knew for a fact that
TCT No. 24605 was not lost, but in the possession of [Benita]. There is also clear
and convincing evidence that [the Spouses Ibias] committed fraud or fraudulent
acts in order to obtain the reconstituted title. By omitting material facts and
perpetrating untruths in the affidavit of loss, petition for reconstitution, and deed of
extrajudicial settlement, [the Spouses Ibias] were issued TCT No. 245124 to the
damage and prejudice of [Benita] and the other legal heirs of Albina Natividad.[11]
The Spouses Ibias filed their Motion for Reconsideration[12] on 19 June

2012, while Benita filed her Comment[13] on 14 August 2012.

The CA denied the Spouses Ibias' motion in a Resolution[14] dated 11 December

2012. The CA stated that the Spouses Ibias merely rehashed the same issues which
were already passed upon by the CA in their decision, and there was no cogent
reason or novel issue to warrant a modification or reversal of the decision.

The Spouses Ibias filed the present petition for review on 1 February 2013, Benita
filed her comment on 2 May 2013. On 17 July 2013, this Court required the
Spouses Ibias to file a reply to the comment within 10 days from notice. This period
expired on 27 September 2013.[15] On 11 June

2014, this Court issued another Resolution denying the Spouses Ibias' petition for
failure to comply with our lawful order without any valid cause. On 26 August 2014,
the Spouses Ibias filed a motion for reconsideration of our 11 June 2014 Resolution.
We granted the Spouses Ibias' motion in a Resolution dated 1 October 2014. The
Spouses Ibias filed a manifestation stating that they reiterate the contents and
allegations in their petition and adopt the same as their reply.

The Issue

The Spouses Ibias presented this sole assignment of error:

With all due respect, the Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error
when it affirmed the order of the court a quo cancelling the Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 24512[4] issued in the name of Spouses Ernesto Ibias Sr. and Gonigonda
Ibias as well as the reinstatement of TCT No. 24605, as the assailed decision
contravenes the established facts of the case; the evidence presented by the
parties; and existing law and jurisprudence on the matter.[16]
In her Comment,[17] Benita contends that the CA did not commit any reversible
error in cancelling TCT No. 245124 and reinstating TCT No. 24605.

The Court's Ruling

The petition has no merit. The RTC and CA were correct in cancelling TCT No.
245124 and reinstating TCT No. 24605.
Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.[18] described reconstitution, thus:

The reconstitution of a title is simply the re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of

title in its original form and condition. It does not determine or resolve the
ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. A reconstituted title,
like the original certificate of title, by itself does not vest ownership of the land or
estate covered thereby.
Ernesto claimed loss of TCT No. 24605, and instituted reconstitution proceedings.
Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529) provides for the procedure in case of loss
of an owner's duplicate certificate of title:
Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. -In case of loss or
theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent
by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province
or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate
certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for the
entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn
statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered
owner or other person in interest and registered.

Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court
may, after-notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate
certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place
of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and
credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all
purposes of this decree.
Section 109 applies only if the owner's duplicate certificate is indeed lost or
destroyed. 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.[19] Consequently, the decision may be attacked any
time.[20] Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6732, which amended Section 19 of
RANo. 26,[21] provides:
SEC. 19. If the certificate of title considered lost or destroyed, and subsequently
found or recovered, is not in the name of the same person in whose favor the
reconstituted certificate of title has been issued, the Register of Deeds or the party
concerned should bring the matter to the attention of the proper Regional Trial
Court, which, after due notice and hearing, shall order the cancellation of the
reconstituted certificate of title and render, with respect to the memoranda of new
liens and encumbrances, if any, made in the reconstituted certificate of title, after
its reconstitution, such judgment as justice and equity may require: Provided,
however, That if the reconstituted certificate of title has been cancelled by virtue of
any deed or instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, or by an order of the
court, and a new certificate of title has been issued, the procedure prescribed
above, with respect to the memorandum of new liens and encumbrances made on
the reconstituted certificate of title, after its reconstitution, shall be followed with
respect to the new certificate of title, and to such new liens and encumbrances, if
any, as may have been on the latter, after the issuance thereof.
Section 11 of RA No. 6732 further provides that "[a] reconstituted title obtained by
means of fraud, deceit or other machination is void ab initio as against the party
obtaining the same and all persons having knowledge thereof."

In the present case, the allegedly lost owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 24605 was
in the possession of Benita. The lost TCT was offered in evidence during the trial.
[22]
 The Spouses Ibias did not contest the genuineness and authenticity of said TCT.
The Spouses Ibias only questioned the submission of a photocopy of the TCT, but
the trial court, after hearing the arguments of both parties, admitted the photocopy
as part of the evidence presented by Benita. There is no reason to justify the
issuance of a reconstituted title in the name of Spouses Ibias; hence, there is no
error in the cancellation of the same reconstituted title.

Ernesto claimed that he believed that the original owner's duplicate copy of TCT No.
24605 was lost after he asked Benita for it then she failed to show it to him.
Ernesto chose to omit facts and to avail of Section 109 as remedy instead
of Section 107. Section 107 of PD 1529 reads:
Section 107. Surrender of withhold duplicate certificates. - Where it is necessary to
issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests
the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary
instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to
surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest may file a
petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. The
court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person withholding the
duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate
or memorandum upon such surrender. If the person withholding the duplicate
certificate is not amenable to the process of the court, or if not any reason the
outstanding owner's duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order
the annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu
thereof. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a
memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the rulings of the trial and appellate courts
which cancelled TCT No. 245124 and reinstated TCT No. 24605.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The Decision promulgated on 30 May 2012

and the Resolution promulgated on 11 December 2012 by the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 88552 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Brion,* J., On leave.