GR 213888; (April, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 213888 . April 25, 2022.
HEIRS OF PROCOPIO BORRAS, REPRESENTED BY RAUL CORDOVILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HEIRS OF EUSTAQUIO BORRAS, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Procopio Borras owned Lot No. 5275, covered by OCT No. [NA] 2097. Upon his death, his five children inherited the property. Eustaquio Borras, a grandson and one of the heirs, filed a petition for reconstitution of the lost OCT before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Albay. On July 7, 1980, the CFI issued an Order directing the reconstitution of the OCT in the name of Procopio Borras and, thereafter, the cancellation of that reconstituted title and the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. 21502) in the name of Eustaquio Borras. In 2004, the Heirs of Procopio Borras (petitioners) discovered the existence of TCT No. 21502 during a barangay conciliation with the Heirs of Eustaquio Borras (respondents). Petitioners filed an action for quieting of title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which declared TCT No. 21502 null and void. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ruling it had no jurisdiction to nullify the title in a quieting of title action and suggested an action for annulment of judgment or reconveyance. Petitioners then filed a petition for annulment of the CFI’s July 7, 1980 Order before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. The CA held that while the CFI exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the issuance of a new title, such excess did not constitute an absolute lack of jurisdiction required for annulment, and that a petition for reconveyance remained an available remedy.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment, specifically in: (A) not considering it the proper remedy despite the trial court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction; (B) not considering it the only available remedy since the 1980 Order was discovered only in 2004; and (C) ruling that reconveyance, not annulment, is the proper remedy.
RULING
The petition is without merit. The Court of Appeals did not err.
Annulment of judgment is an exceptional remedy available only on grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction (either over the person or the subject matter). Lack of jurisdiction for this purpose means an absolute absence of jurisdiction, not merely an abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction. The CFI had jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution at its inception. Its act of ordering the cancellation of the reconstituted OCT and the issuance of a new TCT in favor of Eustaquio, while in excess of its authority under reconstitution proceedings, did not equate to an absolute lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Furthermore, a petition for annulment of judgment is only available when ordinary remedies like appeal are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Here, an action for reconveyance, which prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title, remained a viable and appropriate alternative remedy for the petitioners, who were in possession of the property. The Court affirmed that the proper remedy was an action for reconveyance, not annulment of judgment.