JOSEFINA C. BILLOTE, represented by her Attorneys-in-Fact, Josefina.

Still Imelda and Adelaida

WILLIAM C. BILLOTE and SEGUNDO BILLOTE, Petitioner, vs. requested the owner’s duplicate copy from
IMELDA SOLIS, SPOUSES MANUEL and ADELAIDA DALOPE, William, who refused for lack of any
SPOUSES VICTOR and REMEDIOS BADAR, REGISTER OF DEEDS instruction from their mother.
(LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN), and HON. MELITON EMUSLAN,
Presiding Judge, Branch 47, Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta
City, Respondents.

PONENTE: DIOSDADO PERALTA May 24,  CA partially granted the petition for
Proper ty  6,894 square meters 2007 annulment of judgment
 Urdaneta, Pangasinan Penned by:  RTC judgment null and
 Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 15296 Associate void
(Sps. Hilario Solis and Dorotea Corla) Justice  Cannot declare nullity of
 3 Children (Ludivico, Imelda, Arcangelita TCT No. 274696 in the
Adelaida) M. Romilla- names of Sps Badar.
Lontok, with Upholding the rights as
Associate purchasers in good faith
November After Hilario’s death, Dorotea contracted a Justices and for value
15, 1955 subsequent marriage with Segundo Billote Mariano C. notwithstanding the
 2 Children (Josefina, William) Del Castillo fraud employed by the
December  Imelda filed before the RTC of Urdaneta (now sellers in securing their
16, 2002 City on a Petition for the Issuance of New Associate title
Owner’s Duplicate Certificate claiming that Justice of the  Although the second owner’s duplicate was
the old title is missing Supreme void having been issued by a court which
 submitted a copy of a Deed of Extrajudicial Court), and did not have jurisdiction to order the
Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person Romeo F. issuance of a new owner’s copy which was
with Quitclaim dated July 13, 2002 Barza not lost but was in the possession of
(Dorotea conveyed her share to Imelda and another person (Straight Times, Inc. vs.
Adelaida and an Affidavit of Loss duly CA, 294 SCRA 714; Easterworld Motor
notifying the Register of Deeds of the title’s Industries Corp. vs. Skunac Corp., 478
loss SCRA 420)
 Although new TCT was fraudulently secured
February 24,  RTC granted petition  Cannot prejudice the right of spouses Badar
2003  Jurisdictional requirements of Section absent any showing that they had any
Penned by: 109 of PD No. 1529 have been duly knowledge or participation in such
Judge complied irregularity.
Meliton G.  Notice and replacement of lost  Not obliged to look beyond the vendor’s
Emuslan duplicate certificate. In case of loss or certificate of title which appeared to be
theft of an owner's duplicate valid on its face and devoid of any
certificate of title, due notice under annotation of any adverse claim.
oath shall be sent by the owner or by
someone in his behalf to the Register December 5,  Partial Motion for Reconsideretaion of
of Deeds of the province or city where 2007 Petitioner was denied
the land lies as soon as the loss or
theft is discovered. If a duplicate January 31,  Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed
certificate is lost or destroyed, or 2008 I Praying for the annulment of
cannot be produced by a person both TCTs
applying for the entry of a new II Failure to observe Sec. 6 Rule 47
certificate to him or for the Rules od Court
registration of any instrument, a Section 6. Procedure. — The procedure in
sworn statement of the fact of such ordinary civil cases shall be observed.
loss or destruction may be filed by Should trial be necessary, the reception of
the registered owner or other person the evidence may be referred to a member
in interest and registered. of the court or a judge of a Regional Trial
 Upon the petition of the registered Court.
owner or other person in interest, the
court may, after notice and due
hearing, direct the issuance of a new Petitioner cites Republic Act (RA) No. 26 (An Act Providing a Special
duplicate certificate, which shall Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title Lost or
contain a memorandum of the fact Destroyed," September 25, 1946)
that it is issued in place of the lost
duplicate certificate, but shall in all Section 18. In case a certificate of title, considered lost or destroyed, be
respects be entitled to like faith and found or recovered, the same shall prevail over the reconstituted
credit as the original duplicate, and certificate of title, and, if both titles appear in the name of the same
shall thereafter be regarded as such registered owner, all memoranda of new liens or encumbrances, if any,
for all purposes of this decree. made on the latter, after its reconstitution, except the memorandum of
 Imelda and Adelaida registered the Deed of the reservation referred to in section seven of this Act, shall be transferred
Extrajudicial Settlement, old TCT was to the recovered certificate of title. Thereupon, the register of deeds shall
cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 269811 cancel the reconstituted certificate of title and spread upon the owner's
was issued duplicate, as well as on the co-owner's, mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate,
if any has been issued, such annotations of subsisting liens or
November Imelda and Adelaida executed a Deed of Absolute encumbrances as may appear on the recovered certificate of title,
25, 2003 Sale conveying the entire property including the 1/2 cancelling at the same time the memorandum of the reservation referred
conjugal share of Dorotea to Sps. Victor and to in section seven hereof: Provided, however, That if the reconstituted
Remedios Badar, TCT No. 274696 was issued certificate of title has been cancelled by virtue of any deed or instrument,
July 30, 2004  Josefina, through her Attorneys-in-Fact, whether voluntary or involuntary, or by an order of the court, and a new
brother William and father Segundo filed certificate of title has been issued, the recovered certificate of title shall
before the CA a Petition for Annulment of be likewise cancelled, but all subsisting liens or encumbrances, if any,
Judgment allowing issuance of new TCT to appearing thereon shall be transferred to the new certificate of title and
Imelda for lack of jurisdiction because the to its owner's duplicate, as well as to any co-owner's, mortgagee's or
owner’s duplicate of title was not lost, but lessee's duplicate that may have been issued, the memorandum of the
had all the while been in the possession of reservation referred to in section seven of this Act, if any, being thereby
her brother, William. ipso facto cancelled.
 She alleged that on July 28, 2001, Dorotea
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale Section 19. If the certificate of title considered lost or destroyed, and
conveying her 1/2 conjugal share. Before subsequently found or recovered, is not in the name of the same person
they left for the US, they entrusted to in whose favor the reconstituted certificate of title has been issued, the
William the title register of deeds should bring the matter to the attention of the proper
 She alleged in July 2002, Imelda and Court of First Instance, which, after due notice and hearing, shall order
Adelaida asked Atty. Ramon Veloria to the cancellation of the reconstituted certificate of title and render, with
assist them in transferring the entire respect to the memoranda of new liens or encumbrances, if any, made in
property in their names. Dorotea told them the reconstituted certificate of title, after its reconstitution, such judgment
she had already sold her conjugal share to as justice and equity may require: Provided, however, That, if the
reconstituted certificate of title has been cancelled by virtue of any deed Corporation v. Skunac Corporation; Rodriguez v. Lim, 538; Villanueva v.
or instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, or by an order of the Viloria; Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation)
court, and a new certificate of title has been issued, the procedure
prescribed above, with respect to memoranda of new liens or The fact of loss of the duplicate certificate is jurisdictional. (Eastworld
encumbrances made on the reconstituted certificate of title, after its Motor Industries Corporation v. Skunac Corporation; Republic v.
reconstitution, shall be followed with respect to the new certificate of title, Feliciano)
and to such new liens or encumbrances, if any, as may have been made
on the latter after the issuance thereof. The owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 15296 was not lost but was in the
possession of William all along. The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
Other rulings: over the petition for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of
Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 217 (1998); title. The CA was correct in declaring the decision of the RTC as well as
Demetriou v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115595, November 14, 1994, the second owner’s duplicate of title issued a nullity. The fact of the loss
238 SCRA 158, 162; or existence of the owner’s duplicate certificate, and not whether the
Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals, 272-A Phil. 467 (1991). process prescribed by applicable law was successfully complied with, that
determines the presence or lack of jurisdiction of the trial court.

 Spouses Badar were innocent purchasers for value, lacks

Petitioner contentions: sufficient basis
 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 CA merely declared that the spouses appear to be purchasers in good
the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction to faith without specifying material evidence supporting such declarations.
order the issuance of a new duplicate title The fact that the subject property was already covered by the title issued
 TCT No. 269811 in the names of Imelda and Adelaida, as well under the names of respondents Imelda and Adelaida, by itself, does not
as TCT No. 274696 in the names of spouses Badar, should have automatically lead to the conclusion that the spouses Badar had no
likewise been declared a nullity for having been derived from a knowledge of some other party’s interest over the property. The CA failed
void title to substantiate them with factual proofs confirming the same.
 CA should have remanded the issue on whether said spouses
were innocent purchasers for value to the RTC The CA was limited only to the determination of whether the trial court
 Spouses Badar are not innocent purchasers for value had jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate
considering that they were able to acquire the subject property copy of a certificate of title in lieu of the one allegedly lost. The only fact
from Imelda and Adelaida only after they could not reach the that had to be established was whether or not the original owner’s
price originally offered to them by petitioner. Clearly, the duplicate copy of a certificate of title is still in existence.
Spouses Badar had knowledge of petitioner’s right to the
property. The dispute regarding the issue of ownership over the subject property
whether the Spouses Badar are purchasers in good faith and for value will
Imelda and Adelaida’s contentions: have to be threshed out in a more appropriate proceeding, where the trial
 Section 109 of PD No. 1529 and not Sections 18 and 19 of RA court will conduct a full-blown hearing with the parties presenting their
No. 26 that is applicable in this case. respective evidence to prove ownership over the subject realty, and not
 Sections of RA No. 26 apply specifically to reconstitution of in an action for the issuance of the lost owner's duplicate certificate of
titles, where the original copies are lost or destroyed. Here, title, nor in a proceeding to annul the certificate issued in consequence
what was lost was not the original copy, because it is still in the thereof.
possession of the Register of Deeds, but the owner’s duplicate
certificate of title.  imputation of forum-shopping on the part of petitioner for
 Considering that petitioner did not appear to have any interest having previously filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
in the property, the Deed of Absolute Sale evidencing her Titles, Documents, Recovery of Ownership and Possession
purchase of the same not being registered or annotated on the
title, she did not have any right to notice of the proceedings. We find that the allegation of forum shopping is without basis. The
 Also, respondents maintain that the filing of the instant petition allegation was made more for the purpose of demanding a partition,
is violative of the rule on forum shopping for petitioner had recognizing that private respondent is the owner of 1/3 of the land.
previously filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Titles, Petitioner's intervention is for the purpose of seeking the annulment of
Documents, Recovery of Ownership and Possession, Damages the judgment in granting private respondent's petition for the issuance of
with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title. Thus, there is no identity of
Injunction with the same parties, issues, and causes of action. causes of action which would result in a violation of the rule against forum-
shopping.
Spouses Badar’s contentions:
 they are innocent purchasers for value who relied on the HELD:
correctness of the certificate of title presented to them by Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The issue on the determination of ownership
Imelda and Adelaida. over the disputed property is REMANDED to the RTC. The Decision and
 there is no showing that they purchased the property covered Resolution of the CA are PARTLY AFFIRMED in declaring the Decision dated
with knowledge or privity as to any fraud employed by Imelda February 24, 2003 of the Regional Trial null and void.
and Adelaida in securing their title.

RULING:

 Applicable law in this case is not Sections 18 and 19 of RA No.

26 but Section 109 of 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
PD No. 1529 governs petitions for the issuance of new owner's duplicate
certificates of title which are lost or destroyed. (New Durawood Co., Inc.
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111732, February 20, 1996, 253 SCRA 740,
746)

 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,
the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the
law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. (Manila v.
Gallardo-Manzo)

 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. (Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals;
Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. v. Court of Appeals; Eastworld Motor Industries