G.R. No. 173891 September 8, 2008
HEIRS OF THE LATE SPS. LUCIANO P. LIM and SALUD NAKPIL BAUTISTA, namely: LUIS LIM, LOURDES LIM OLIVERA and LEONARDO LIM, petitioners, vs. THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, Branch 216, as Successor of the late Judge Marciano Bacalla of the said Court; AMPARO CAÑOSA; and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Amparo Cañosa filed a petition for the reconstitution of the original Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 169395 covering a 33,914-square-meter parcel of land in Quezon City. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition ex parte. Subsequently, petitioners, heirs of spouses Lim, filed a petition for annulment of that judgment. They claimed ownership over a 795-square-meter portion of the land covered by the reconstituted title, asserting it was already covered by their own reconstituted title, TCT No. RT-97223. They alleged the reconstitution proceedings were void for lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, citing non-compliance with statutory notice requirements under Republic Act No. 26, which prevented them from opposing the petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for a lost appeal or a vehicle to re-litigate issues of ownership. The core legal logic is that the appellate court, in such a petition, acts as a trier of facts only if it first finds prima facie merit in the allegations of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Here, the Court of Appeals found no such merit. A mere comparison of the technical descriptions in the competing titles revealed they referred to entirely different parcels of land with distinct lot numbers, survey plans, and origins. The petitioners’ lot was derived from a subdivision plan in Old Balara, Quezon City, while respondent’s lot originated from a plan in Montalban, Rizal. Since the titles did not overlap, the alleged jurisdictional defect—that the property was already covered by existing titles—and the claim of extrinsic fraud based on defective notice were unsubstantiated. The proper recourse for petitioners, who essentially claimed ownership over a portion of the land, was an ordinary civil action for quieting of title, not an annulment of judgment. The annulment petition was correctly dismissed for lack of substantial merit.