GR 222958; (March, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 222958 , March 11, 2020
Philippine Bank of Communications, Petitioner, v. The Register of Deeds for the Province of Benguet, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) filed two successive petitions for the issuance of a replacement owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 21320, which it claimed was lost. PBCOM acquired the property through an extrajudicial foreclosure sale in 1985 but only became aware of its ownership after receiving a real property tax notice in 2010. The first petition (LRC Case No. 11-AD-1335) was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, La Trinidad, Benguet, on July 29, 2011, for insufficiency of evidence, specifically PBCOM’s failure to prove it had exerted all efforts to locate the title from all possible sources, including past officers or counsel. PBCOM’s subsequent omnibus motion for reconsideration was deemed abandoned for non-compliance with procedural requirements. Instead of appealing this dismissal, PBCOM filed a second petition (LRC Case No. 12-AD-1401) with essentially the same allegations, which was raffled to RTC, Branch 63. The RTC, Branch 63, dismissed the second petition motu proprio on April 27, 2012, on the ground of res judicata, holding that the dismissal of the first petition—an adjudication on the merits—barred the second petition involving the same parties and cause of action. PBCOM’s motion for reconsideration was denied. PBCOM initially filed a notice of appeal but later withdrew it and instead filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that PBCOM availed of the wrong remedy, as the dismissal based on res judicata was a final order appealable under Rule 45, and that all elements of res judicata were present. PBCOM then filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE
1. Whether PBCOM availed of the correct remedy to challenge the dismissal of the second petition.
2. Whether the RTC, Branch 63, correctly dismissed the second petition on the ground of res judicata.
RULING
1. On the Correct Remedy: The Supreme Court ruled that PBCOM availed of the wrong remedy when it filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the CA. A dismissal on the ground of res judicata is a final order that completely disposes of the case and is appealable under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as it does not fall under the exceptions listed in Rule 41, Section 1. Since an ordinary appeal was available, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 was improper. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and is only allowable when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. PBCOM’s contention that the order was void for lack of due process was untenable, as any error in the application of res judicata is an error of judgment correctible by appeal, not certiorari.
2. On the Application of Res Judicata: The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC, Branch 63, correctly dismissed the second petition on the ground of res judicata. The elements of res judicata were present: (a) the first judgment or order was final; (b) the court that rendered it had jurisdiction; (c) it was a judgment on the merits; and (d) there was identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second petitions. The dismissal of the first petition for failure to prove the fact of loss due to insufficiency of evidence constituted an adjudication on the merits. Both petitions involved the same parties (PBCOM as petitioner) and the same cause of action (a claim for the issuance of a replacement owner’s duplicate TCT based on the same alleged loss). The Court rejected PBCOM’s argument that the Rules of Court and res judicata do not apply to land registration cases, stating that while land registration is a proceeding in rem, the principle of res judicata applies to judicial proceedings for the replacement of a lost duplicate certificate of title under Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The Court also noted that PBCOM’s remedy after the dismissal of the first petition was to appeal, not to re-file a substantially identical petition.
The Petition was DENIED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution, which dismissed PBCOM’s petition for certiorari and affirmed the RTC, Branch 63’s Orders, were AFFIRMED.