G.R. No. 212598 , September 29, 2021
GAW CHIN TY, VICENTA GAW CHUA, ROBERT GAW CHUA, MANUEL GAW CHUA, ALEJANDRO GAW CHUA, MARIO GAW CHUA, AND JACQUELINE GAW CHUA, PETITIONERS, VS. ANTONIO GAW CHUA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Spouses Gaw Chin Ty and Chua Giok See purchased a parcel of land and, following a family custom, registered it under the name of their first-born son, respondent Antonio Gaw Chua. To protect the rights of their other children, the spouses entrusted the original owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 420866 to their second eldest son, petitioner Vicente Gaw Chua. Antonio filed a verified petition claiming the loss of the owner’s duplicate title, and the RTC granted it, declaring the original duplicate null and void and causing the Registry of Deeds to issue a new owner’s duplicate copy in Antonio’s name. Petitioners (Gaw Chin Ty and her other children) filed a Notice of Adverse Claim on the title. Subsequently, Antonio filed a complaint against Vicente for physical injury; during the barangay conciliation for that complaint, the parties discussed the property issue but failed to settle. Antonio also filed a petition for cancellation of the adverse claim (LRC Case No. 1075-MN), where court-annexed mediation was conducted but was unsuccessful. Petitioners then filed a petition to annul the new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 420866 before the RTC, alleging that the original was not lost but in their possession and that Antonio knew this, and that the title was held by Antonio merely in trust for the family. During pre-trial, Vicente presented the original owner’s duplicate copy. Antonio claimed it was spurious but failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption of its regularity. The RTC granted the petition and declared the new owner’s duplicate copy null and void. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissing the petition without prejudice on the ground that petitioners failed to comply with the condition precedent under Article 151 of the Family Code, which requires earnest efforts towards a compromise among family members before filing suit. The CA held this was a jurisdictional defect.

ISSUE

Whether the petition to annul the new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 420866 should be dismissed for failure to allege or comply with the condition precedent of a family compromise under Article 151 of the Family Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the RTC Decision. The Court held that failure to allege compliance with Article 151 of the Family Code in the pleading is not a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant automatic dismissal; it is merely a procedural lapse that can be cured by evidence presented during trial showing that earnest efforts at a compromise were in fact undertaken. The Court found that the condition precedent was substantially complied with through two avenues: (1) the court-annexed mandatory mediation in the related LRC case (for cancellation of the adverse claim), where the property issue was discussed, and (2) the barangay conciliation proceedings for the physical injury complaint, which also centered on the subject property. Both proceedings involved the same parties and the core property dispute, constituting earnest efforts towards a settlement. The Court emphasized that the ultimate substantive issue—the validity of a new owner’s duplicate title issued while the original was not lost—takes precedence over the procedural issue. Since the original owner’s duplicate title was not lost, the issuance of a new one was void. The case was remanded to the trial court solely for the annulment of the new owner’s duplicate title, not for the resolution of ownership, which is a separate matter.