G.R. No. 220940. March 20, 2017.
JOY VANESSA M. SEBASTIAN, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES NELSON C. CRUZ AND CRISTINA P. CRUZ and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Joy Vanessa M. Sebastian purchased a parcel of land from respondent Nelson Cruz through his father and attorney-in-fact, Lamberto Cruz. Sebastian paid the purchase price, received possession, and was given the owner’s duplicate certificate of title (OCT No. P-41566). She paid the corresponding taxes and annotated an adverse claim on the title in 2011 after the respondents failed to provide a requested Special Power of Attorney to facilitate the transfer.
Subsequently, Sebastian discovered that in 2013, Nelson Cruz executed an Affidavit of Loss claiming the loss of the owner’s duplicate copy of the title. The Spouses Cruz then filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the issuance of a second owner’s copy, docketed as LRC Case No. 421. The RTC granted the petition in a Decision dated March 27, 2014. Sebastian filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the duplicate certificate was not lost but in her possession all along.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied due course and dismissed Sebastian’s petition for annulment of judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition is meritorious and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. Under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, lack of jurisdiction is a ground for annulment of judgment. The governing law for judicial reconstitution of title is Republic Act No. 26, Section 15 of which requires that the certificate of title had been genuinely lost or destroyed. The Court found that Sebastian’s allegation—that the owner’s duplicate certificate was never lost but remained in her possession—directly challenges a fundamental jurisdictional requisite for the RTC’s reconstitution proceedings.
If true, the absence of a factual basis for loss would mean the RTC had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for issuance of a second owner’s copy. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void. The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Sebastian’s petition outright based solely on the respondents’ compliance with publication and notice requirements, as these do not cure a jurisdictional defect if the core fact of loss is contested. The Supreme Court held that Sebastian’s petition prima facie showed merit on the jurisdictional issue, warranting due course and further proceedings to determine the factual truth of the alleged loss.