G.R. No. 163684; April 16, 2008
FAUSTINA CAMITAN and DAMASO LOPEZ, petitioners, vs. FIDELITY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Faustina Camitan and Damaso Lopez, along with Alipio Camitan, filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in 1993 for the issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-(12110) T-4342, alleging that their original duplicate copy was lost. They asserted they were the registered co-owners, were in possession of the land, and had paid realty taxes. The RTC granted their petition in 1994, ordering the Register of Deeds to issue a new duplicate copy and declaring the old one void. In 1995, respondent Fidelity Investment Corporation filed a petition for annulment of that RTC order before the Court of Appeals. Fidelity claimed it had purchased the property from the registered owners in 1967, had been in possession of the original owner’s duplicate copy since then, and had been in actual possession of the land and paying taxes. It argued the RTC had no jurisdiction because the title was not lost, and petitioners committed perjury by not notifying Fidelity of their petition.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the RTC’s order granting the petition for issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy is valid, considering Fidelity’s claim of prior possession of the original duplicate title and ownership of the property.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision annulling the RTC order. The legal logic rests on jurisdiction and judicial admissions. A petition for replacement of a lost duplicate certificate of title is a special proceeding where jurisdiction is premised on the fact of loss. If the duplicate copy is not actually lost but in the possession of another, the court acquires no jurisdiction to order its replacement. Here, during proceedings before the CA, petitioners’ counsel admitted the genuineness of the owner’s duplicate copy presented by Fidelity. This constituted a judicial admission under Rule 129, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, which is binding on petitioners and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake. Petitioners’ subsequent retraction, citing counsel’s nervousness, was insufficient to overcome this admission. Consequently, since the duplicate title was not lost but in Fidelity’s possession, the RTC lacked jurisdiction to issue the replacement order, rendering it null and void. The Court clarified that the resolution of the ownership dispute over the land itself was not necessary for this determination, as possession of a certificate of title is not equivalent to ownership, and the annulment proceeding focused solely on the validity of the judicial order issued without jurisdiction.