G.R. No. 188381; December 14, 2011
BAGUIO TRINITY DEVELOPERS, INC., represented by RICARDO JULIAN, Petitioner, vs. THE HEIRS OF JOSE RAMOS and THE HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO and VICTORINA NEPA; and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over a 2,933-square-meter lot in Rosario, La Union, originally owned by spouses Meliton Grabiles and Leona Calderon. Petitioner Baguio Trinity Developers, Inc. acquired the lot on January 3, 1994, and was issued Transfer Certificate of Title T-38340. However, two reconstitution proceedings were previously filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agoo, La Union, Branch 31. The first, filed in 1985 by Anastacio Laroco and Leona Javier, resulted in an October 20, 1986 order reconstituting the title in the name of Maria Bernal. The second, filed in 1986 by Melicia Silva purportedly on behalf of the Grabiles, resulted in an October 28, 1986 order reconstituting the title in the name of the Grabiles as OCT RO-4717, which contained annotations of sales to Jose Ramos (in 1939) and to spouses Leopoldo and Victorina Nepa (via a 1944 sale to Quirini Parrocha, later sold to the Nepas in 1955). Respondents are the heirs of Ramos and the Nepas.
Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery and declaration of nullity of title before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in 1995, but it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A second complaint before the RTC of Agoo, Branch 32, was dismissed in 2004 for lack of jurisdiction due to the property’s assessed value and because it could not annul an order of a co-equal court. The Court of Appeals (CA), in a petition for certiorari, dismissed the case on September 13, 2007, stating the proper remedy was a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
On December 20, 2007, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of the 1986 reconstitution orders with the CA, arguing the RTC had no jurisdiction as the Grabiles’ title was not lost and the Grabiles were long dead and could not have authorized the proceedings. The CA dismissed the petition on May 8, 2008, for failure to attach a certified true copy of the October 20, 1986 RTC order and other required documents, and for insufficient docket fees. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, attaching an affidavit and copies of titles to show chain of ownership, paid the deficiency, and explained that a certified copy could not be obtained because the RTC records were destroyed in the July 16, 1990 earthquake, as per an RTC Certification dated November 14, 2007. The CA denied the motion on November 7, 2008, citing the mandatory requirement of a certified copy under Rule 47, and additionally held the petition was barred by laches, as petitioner had notice of the orders since 1995 but filed the annulment only in 2007.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment on the grounds of: (a) failure to submit certified true copies of the assailed RTC orders; and (b) laches.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the CA resolutions.
1. On the requirement of a certified true copy: The Court ruled that while Section 4, Rule 47 mandates attaching a certified copy of the assailed judgment, strict compliance could not be insisted upon under the circumstances. The RTC records, including the original orders, were lost due to the 1990 earthquake, as certified by the clerk of court. When the original is lost and its unavailability established, secondary evidence is allowed under Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence. Petitioner could submit faithful copies of the orders authenticated by a verified statement, or copies from the Land Registration Authority or Register of Deeds. Petitioner had attached copies, and their authenticity was not questioned by respondents. The requirement to submit other documents (pleadings, notices, titles) could be addressed during the hearing after issues are joined. The CA erred in dismissing the petition on this ground.
2. On the ground of laches: The Court held that laches did not bar the action. The core issue was the RTC’s alleged lack of jurisdiction in issuing the reconstitution orders, which rendered them void. A void judgment can be assailed at any time. Furthermore, the conflicting reconstituted titles created an intolerable situation under the Torrens system, which assures only one valid title per parcel of land. An action to resolve such a fundamental conflict over title ownership cannot be barred by laches.
The Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to hear and decide the merits of the petition for annulment of judgment.