G.R. No. 144099 . September 26, 2005.
ELVIRA MACABALO-BRAVO AND ROLANDO T. MACABALO, Petitioners, vs. JUAN F. MACABALO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF KALOOKAN CITY, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elvira Macabalo-Bravo filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 232003, alleging it was lost after being surrendered to her by the registered owner, Reynaldo dela Cruz, as mortgagee. The RTC granted the petition, declared the original title null and void, and ordered the issuance of a new duplicate copy. Subsequently, the lot was subdivided, and new titles were issued in the names of Elvira and her brother, Rolando.
Private respondent Juan Macabalo, the father of Elvira and Rolando, filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA). He alleged that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the original owner’s duplicate title was not lost but was in his possession. He claimed he had arranged for Elvira to be named as mortgagee for his protection but retained physical possession of the title. Petitioners countered that they redeemed the property with their own funds and that the title was lost from Elvira’s possession, suspecting Juan had taken it.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the RTC’s order for the issuance of a second owner’s duplicate certificate of title.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals’ decision is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the RTC’s order was issued without jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in a petition for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title is premised on the fact of its actual loss. If the title is not lost, the court acquires no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. In this case, the presentation by Juan of the original Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 232003 during the proceedings before the CA conclusively proved that the title was not lost when Elvira filed her petition. Therefore, the RTC’s proceedings were null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
The legal logic is grounded in the principle that a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is void. Since the foundational fact of loss was absent, the RTC’s order and all subsequent acts stemming from it, including the issuance of TCT Nos. 322765 and 322766 to the petitioners, are likewise void. The Court cited the precedent of Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, which established that titles derived from a void replacement title are also null and void. Juan, as the possessor of the original title, was a proper party-in-interest to seek annulment. The petition was denied.