GR 177042; (December, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177042 ; December 10, 2012
SPOUSES CRISANTO ALCAZAR and SUSANA VILLAMAYOR, Petitioners, vs. EVELYN ARANTE, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Crisanto Alcazar filed a Petition for Reconstitution of a lost owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 169526 with the RTC of Pasig. He alleged being the sole heir of his deceased parents, the registered owners, and that the title was lost after being entrusted to unidentified individuals. The RTC, after due publication and hearing with no opposition from notified government offices, granted the petition, declared the old duplicate null and void, and ordered the issuance of a new one. The decision became final.
Subsequently, respondent Evelyn Arante filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals. She claimed the RTC had no jurisdiction as the title was not actually lost but was in her possession. She alleged the petitioners obtained a loan from her, secured by a real estate mortgage over the subject property, and the owner’s duplicate title was delivered to her as mortgagee. She discovered the reconstitution proceedings only after the new title was issued.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the RTC’s final and executory decision in the reconstitution case for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. Jurisdiction in a petition for reconstitution of a lost duplicate certificate of title is conferred upon the court only if the duplicate is genuinely lost or destroyed. If it is not lost but is held by another person under a claim of right, the reconstitution court lacks jurisdiction over the petition. The existence of the duplicate certificate is a jurisdictional fact.
In this case, the respondent sufficiently established through her allegations and evidence that she was in possession of the owner’s duplicate certificate, having received it as collateral for a loan. This fact, if true, means the duplicate was not lost but merely withheld. Consequently, the RTC had no authority to entertain the reconstitution petition. A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is void and can be assailed at any time. The CA properly annulled the RTC’s decision as the jurisdictional requirement of actual loss was not met, rendering the proceedings and the resulting title null and void. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, emphasizing that the finality of a judgment does not vest validity if the court acted without jurisdiction from the outset.