GR 128099; (December, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128099 , December 20, 2006
FELIX CAMITAN, FRANCISCO CAMITAN, SEVERO CAMITAN and VICTORIA CAMITAN, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and FIDELITY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
The registered owners, spouses Mateo Camitan and Lorenza Alcazar, sold a parcel of land to respondent Fidelity Investment Corporation in 1967, delivering the owner’s duplicate certificate of title. Respondent thereafter paid real estate taxes and possessed the property. After the spouses died, their heirs (petitioners) filed a petition in 1993 for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate, alleging its loss. The trial court, proceeding ex parte without notice to respondent, granted the petition and ordered a new copy issued, declaring the original void.
Respondent later discovered this order and filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals. It argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the title was not lost but in its possession since 1967, and petitioners had no legal interest to file the petition as all rights had been transferred by the sale. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and annulled the trial court’s order.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the trial court’s order for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title.
RULING
The Court of Appeals did not err. An action for annulment of judgment is proper on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in a petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title is premised on the fact of its actual loss. The established fact, as found by the Court of Appeals, was that the title was never lost; it remained in respondent’s possession since the 1967 sale. Therefore, the factual basis for the trial court’s jurisdiction was absent, rendering its proceedings and order null and void.
Petitioners’ ancillary arguments—questioning respondent’s ownership due to non-registration, alleging estoppel or laches, and speculating about ill-gotten wealth—are immaterial to the core jurisdictional issue. The determination of ownership or motives for non-registration involves factual inquiries not proper in this petition. The sole relevant point is that the trial court could not legally act on a petition alleging a loss that did not exist. Consequently, the annulment by the Court of Appeals was correct. The petition is denied.