GR 232060; (January, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 232060 . January 14, 2019.
VIRGILIA T. AQUINO, NAZARIA T. AQUINO, AVELINA A. RONQUILLO, PATROCINIO T. AQUINO, and RAMONCITO T. NEPOMUCENO, Petitioners, vs. ESTATE OF TOMAS B. AGUIRRE, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, heirs of Spouses Basilio Aquino and Ambrocia Tantay, filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of the lost original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-3269 covering a parcel of land in Bacoor, Cavite. They based their petition on the surviving owner’s duplicate certificate of title. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and ordered the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the title. Respondent Estate of Tomas B. Aguirre, claiming ownership under a different title (TCT No. T-6874) and alleging it was in actual possession of the property, moved to intervene and oppose the reconstitution. The RTC denied the motion. Respondent then filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA).
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the RTC’s Order for reconstitution on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the RTC’s Order. The CA’s annulment was improper. First, the remedy of annulment under Rule 47 requires that ordinary remedies like appeal are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Here, the respondent was not a party to the original reconstitution case; thus, the remedy of appeal was never available to it from the start. Annulment was, therefore, a proper recourse. However, on the merits, the CA erred in finding extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners’ reconstitution petition was based on the owner’s duplicate title, falling under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 26 . For such petitions, the law only requires publication of notice, not personal notice to adjoining owners or claimants like the respondent. The petitioners’ failure to notify the respondent or mention his claim was not a fraudulent concealment of a fact but a failure to disclose a legal contention or adverse claim, which does not constitute extrinsic fraud. Furthermore, the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter, as the petition complied with the jurisdictional requirements of R.A. No. 26 for reconstitution based on an owner’s duplicate certificate. The CA’s annulment of a validly rendered judgment was thus erroneous.