Esperanza P. Gaoiran vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Norter, Sps. Timoteo S. Pablo and Perlita Pablo et.al.,
G.R. No. 215925, March 7, 2022
Facts:
1. Petitioner alleged that her friends introduced to her a certain Timoteo H. Pablo, Jr. who was allegedly looking for a buyer of a land registered under the name of his wife, Perlita S. Pablo.
2. Timoteo was able to convince petitioner to purchase the said property upon the representation that he was authorized by his wife, Perlita to sell the same. On the same day, petitioner delivered the purchase price to Timoteo and in exchange, Timoteo surrendered the first owner's duplicate copy of TCT T-34540 to petitioner and undertook to deliver a deed of absolute sale signed by his wife. Timoteo, however, did not make good his promise
3. This prompted petitioner to institute before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Laoag City a complaint for Estafa against Timoteo.
4. Meanwhile, on the claim that the owner's duplicate copy of the subject property's title was missing, respondent Mary Nyre Dawn Alcantara, representing herself as the niece of respondent Perlita, and the latter's trustee, filed before the RTC of Laoag City a petition praying that the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT T-34540 that had been lost be declared as null and void. She likewise prayed for the issuance of a second owner's duplicate copy of TCT T-34540.
5. Finding sufficient, competent and credible evidence in support of the petition for issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title, the RTC of Laoag City ordered the issuance of a second owner's duplicate copy of TCT T-34540. Pursuant to which, the RTC of Laoag City declared the lost owner's duplicate copy as null and void.
6. Then petitioner instituted before the CA a petition for annulment of judgment seeking to annul the Decision of the RTC of Laoag City.
7. Petitioner averred that it was only upon her inquiry with the RD-Laoag about the status of the aforesaid title, that she discovered that a second owner's duplicate copy of TCT T-34540 was issued in favor of Perlita.
8. In view of the foregoing incidents, petitioner filed the aforesaid petition for annulment of judgment before the CA on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
9. CA: CA dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment declaring that a petition under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court cannot be used to impugn the second owner's duplicate certificate of title which was issued in the reconstitution proceeding before the trial court for to do so would constitute a collateral attack upon the issued certificate of title which is sanctioned by Section 48 of PD 1529.
10. Hence, this petition for certiorari imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.
Issues:
· Whether or not petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court is proper
· Whether or not the Petition for annulment of judgment is the proper remedy
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE
The Supreme Court held that petitioner availed of the wrong mode of appeal when she filed before the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to assail the Resolutions of the CA. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action that may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
In Alba v. Court of Appeals and Linzag v. Court of Appeals, it was held that a party aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeals in a petition filed with it for annulment of judgment, final order or resolution is not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, but rather an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 where only questions of law may be raised. A petition for certiorari is, like a petition for annulment, a remedy of last resort and must be availed of only when an appeal or any other adequate, plain or speedy remedy may no longer be pursued in the ordinary course of law. A remedy is said to be plain, speedy and adequate when it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.
In this case, the CA acted within its jurisdiction when it rendered the assailed Decision. The decision was a final judgment that disposed of the case in a manner leaving the court with nothing more to do. Accordingly, petitioner should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, in the Supreme Court.
SECOND ISSUE
Yes. Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the only grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. In this case, petitioner alleges that the CA erred in failing to annul the Decision of the RTC on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
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 case of absence, or lack, of jurisdiction, a court should not take cognizance of the case. Thus, the prevailing rule is that where there is want of jurisdiction over a subject matter, the judgment is rendered null and void. A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment, by which no rights are divested, from which no right can be obtained, which neither binds nor bars any one, and under which all acts performed and all claims flowing out are void. It is not a decision in contemplation of law and, hence, it can never become executory. It also follows that such a void judgment cannot constitute a bar to another case by reason of res judicata.
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.
For an order of reconstitution to be issued, it must be clearly shown that the certificate of title had been 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
The Court reiterated the rule that when the owner's duplicate certificate of title was not actually lost or destroyed, but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void because the court that rendered the order of reconstitution had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
That there was no valid contract of sale executed between Perlita and petitioner is of no moment. The indelible fact remains that the allegedly lost genuine certificate of title was all the while in the custody of petitioner. Ergo, the RTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the reconstitution proceeding.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment