GR 162846; (September, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162846 September 22, 2005
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Jose Lubis Masongsong and Juanito Lubis Masongsong, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Jose and Juanito Masongsong filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the declaration of nullity of Decree No. 639024, issued in 1937 in the name of their predecessor, Serapio Lubis, covering a parcel of land in Batangas. They alleged that the original decree and corresponding certificate of title were lost or destroyed, likely during World War II, as certified by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and the Register of Deeds. The respondents, as heirs, had executed an extrajudicial settlement and possessed the land. The RTC granted the petition and ordered the LRA Administrator to issue a new decree. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the proper remedy for the loss of the original decree was not a petition for its declaration of nullity but a petition for reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 . The Republic contended that the respondents’ action was an improper collateral attack on a decree that had long become final and incontrovertible.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents properly availed of a petition for declaration of nullity of Decree No. 639024 as a remedy for its alleged loss.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the Court of Appeals, and DISMISSED the respondents’ petition in the RTC. The Court held that a decree of registration, once final, is conclusive and can only be assailed in a direct proceeding for its nullity based on lack of jurisdiction or fraud. The respondents’ petition did not allege any jurisdictional defect or fraud in the issuance of the 1937 decree; it merely sought its nullity due to its loss. This constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a final decree.
The correct remedy for the loss of the original decree is a petition for judicial reconstitution of title under Republic Act No. 26 , which provides the specific procedure for reconstituting lost or destroyed certificates of title. The respondents’ action was improperly filed as a petition for nullity under the general provisions of the Property Registration Decree (Presidential Decree No. 1529), which governs the replacement of lost duplicate certificates of title, not the original decree issued by the court. Since the respondents failed to pursue the proper statutory remedy, their petition was dismissible.