GR 128412; (March, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128412 March 15, 2002
REXLON REALTY GROUP, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARTURO T. DE GUIA, RTC JUDGE (Cavite City), BRANCH 16, ALEX L. DAVID, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF CAVITE AND PARAMOUNT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Alex L. David is the registered owner of two parcels of land in Cavite covered by TCT Nos. T-72537 and T-72538. On August 17, 1989, petitioner Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. entered into an “Absolute Deed of Sale” with David for the purchase of said lands. On February 18, 1994, David filed a petition with the RTC of Cavite for the issuance of new owner’s duplicate copies of the TCTs, alleging they were lost after he entrusted them to a friend to show a prospective developer. The RTC issued a notice of hearing, which was posted in three public places. The hearing proceeded ex-parte, and on March 1, 1994, the RTC granted the petition and directed the Register of Deeds to issue new duplicate copies. Subsequently, David sold the properties to respondent Paramount Development Corporation, which obtained new TCTs. Rexlon filed a petition with the Court of Appeals for annulment of the RTC decision, alleging fraud, lack of due process, and grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. Rexlon elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not annulling the RTC decision that granted the petition for issuance of new owner’s duplicate certificates of title on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The issuance of new owner’s duplicate certificates of title by the RTC was tainted with extrinsic fraud. David, in his petition before the RTC, alleged the owner’s duplicates were lost after being entrusted to a friend. However, evidence showed David had delivered these duplicates to Rexlon pursuant to their contract of sale. This constituted a deliberate concealment of a vital fact—the existence of a buyer in possession of the certificates—which prevented Rexlon from presenting its claim before the court. This extrinsic fraud warranted the annulment of the judgment. The Court further clarified that in a petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy under Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529, the court’s jurisdiction is limited; it cannot adjudicate questions of actual ownership. The dispute over ownership between Rexlon and David must be resolved in a proper action. Consequently, the Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the Court of Appeals decision, ANNULLED the RTC decision, and declared VOID the new owner’s duplicate copies issued to David and the replacement TCTs issued to Paramount.