GR 115595; (November, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115595 November 14, 1994
ANTONIO DEMETRIOU, HARRIET DEMETRIOU, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE RHODIE A. NIDEA, and HILDA RALLA-ALMINE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are co-owners of two-thirds of a property covered by TCT No. T-65878, originally in the name of Pablo Ralla, private respondent’s deceased father. They acquired their share through deeds of absolute sale executed in July 1985 and July 1986, and a court order in May 1989. They delayed registration to await the expiration of a lease contract. After the lease expired in August 1991, they discovered that private respondent had previously filed a petition (CAD Case No. T-1024) in September 1990, falsely alleging the loss of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title during a typhoon. Based on this affidavit of loss, the Regional Trial Court issued an order on December 7, 1990, directing the Register of Deeds to issue a new owner’s duplicate copy and declaring the original lost copy of no force and effect. Petitioners allege the affidavit was fraudulent because they possessed the original owner’s duplicate copy, delivered to them at the time of sale. They filed a petition in the Court of Appeals to annul the RTC’s decision, but it was denied on the ground that the fraud alleged was intrinsic, not extrinsic.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment on the ground that the fraud alleged was only intrinsic fraud.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. While the appellate court was correct that the use of a false affidavit of loss constitutes intrinsic fraud, a final judgment may also be annulled for lack of jurisdiction. Citing Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals and Republic Act No. 26 , Section 18, the Court held that if a certificate of title is not actually lost but is in the possession of another person, the court rendering the decision for reconstitution has not acquired jurisdiction. Consequently, the reconstituted title is void and the decision may be attacked at any time. The Court also found that the filing of the petition for annulment did not constitute forum shopping, as petitioners’ intervention in a separate recovery of possession case was for a different purpose. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.