VICTORINO F. VILLANUEVA, ROSITA M. VILLANUEVA vs. FRANCISCO VILORIA and, as Attorney-in-Fact, SAMUEL P. VERA CRUZ, G.R. No. 155804, March 14, 2008
x x x.
Petitioners submit that the decision of the CA is not in consonance with the Court’s decision in the case of Rexlon Realty Group Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[17] In their petition, petitioners state that:
In the said case the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner and GRANTED the Petition for Review filed by the Petitioner, it reversed and set aside the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite (w)as ANNULLED; declaring void the new owner’s duplicate copies of TCT Nos. T-72537 and T-72538 in the name of Alex L. David issued by virtue of the said Decision of the Regional Trial Court as well as the replacement thereof and explained its decision as follows:
In the case of Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, where this Court was faced with the same facts and issue, therein respondent Peñalosa filed a petition for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title. He alleged therein that his copy was lost and was not pledged or otherwise delivered to any person or entity to guaranty any obligation or for any purpose. When the trial court issued a new owner’s duplicate title, therein petitioner Strait Times, Inc filed a petition to annul judgment based on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Strait Times, Inc. claimed that Peñalosa misrepresented before the trial court that the said owner’s duplicate copy of the title was lost when in fact it was in the possession of the former pursuant to a contract of sale between Peñalosa and a certain Conrado Callera. Callera later sold the lot represented by the alleged lost title to therein petitioner Strait Times, Inc.
We ruled therein, as we now rule in the case at bar, that extrinsic fraud did not attend the proceedings before the trial court for the reason that:
xxx It is well-settled that the use of forged instrument or perjured testimonies during trial is not an extrinsic fraud, because such evidence does not preclude the participation of any party in the proceedings. While a perjured testimony may prevent a fair and just determination of a case, it does not bar the adverse party from rebutting or opposing the use of such evidence. Furthermore, it should be stressed that extrinsic fraud pertains to an act committed outside of the trial. The alleged fraud in this case was perpetrated during the trial.
x x x
However, in consonance with the Strait Times case, respondent Davids’ act of misrepresentation, though not constituting extrinsic fraud, is still an evidence of absence of jurisdiction. In the Strait Times case and in Demetriou v. Court of Appeals, also on facts analogous to those involved in this case, we held that if an owner’s duplicate copy of a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction. Consequently, the decision may be attacked any time. In the case at bar, the authenticity and genuineness of the owner’s duplicate of TCT Nos. T-52537 and T-52538 in the possession of petitioner Rexlon and the Absolute Deed of Sale in its favor have not been disputed. As there is no proof to support actual loss of the said owner’s duplicate copies of said certificates of title, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction and the new titles issued in replacement thereof are void.[18]
The petition has merit.
The present case is on all fours with the Strait Times case, in that the trial court could not have validly acquired jurisdiction to reconstitute the alleged lost owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-16156 since the same was not lost but was in the possession of petitioners who had purchased the property from its late owner.
Such being the case, the Order of the trial court dated March 27, 2001 directing the reconstitution could not have become final and executory, it being void for lack of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70560 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order of the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales dated March 27, 2001 is DECLARED NULL and VOID for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate Justices Conchita Carpio Morales (now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Mariano C. Del Castillo, concurring, rollo, pp. 23-29.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Mariano C. Del Castillo, concurring, id. at 32.
[3] Id. at 34-36.
[4] Id. at 34-35.
[5] Id. at 35.
[6] Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Angel L. Hernando, Jr., id. at 42-44.
[7] Id. at 43-44.
[8] Records, p. 25.
[9] CA rollo, pp. 46-48.
[10] Id. at 51.
[11] See Deed of Absolute Sale, id. at 49-50.
[12] Id. at 52-53.
[13] CA rollo, pp. 24-25.
[14] Rollo, p. 45.
[15] Id. at 46.
[16] Id. at 8.
[17] 429 Phil. 31 (2002).
[18] Rollo, pp. 14-15.
