Paz vs.

Republic the reglementary period; for a review of the decree of

Facts: registration issued to the "government of the Philippine
Islands."; (B) there is an imputation of a wrongful or
Petitioner brought a petition for the cancellation of fraudulent titling in the issuance of Original Certificate
OCT. The petition, ostensibly made under Section 108 of Title allegedly irregular due to the absence of survey
of P.D. No. 1529, impleaded the Republic of the plan, decree of registration and court records; (C) the
Philippines (Republic), Filinvest Development Petition finally seeks as its main relief the issuance of
Corporation (FDC), and Filinvest Alabang, Inc. (FAI) a new title to him, Luciano Paz, after Original
as respondents. Certificate of Title is invalidated, or the reconveyance
of the property to him. This action although entitled a
The petition averred that the petitioner was the owner
Petition for cancellation of a title, which is a complaint
of Parcel 1 situated in Parañaque City, Pasay City,
by itself, is complete with the name of the parties, the
Taguig City and San Pedro, Laguna, and Parcel 2
subject matter, the cause of action, and the reliefs
situated in Alabang, Muntinlupa, Parañaque City and
prayed for, which are all components of a regular
Las Piñas City; that OCT was registered in the name of
complaint. It is in fact an initiatory pleading, and is not
the Republic; that FDC and FAI developed Lot into a
a mere motion.
subdivision based on their joint venture agreement with
the Government; that pursuant to the joint venture It is futile to deny that the petition is a fresh lawsuit,
agreement, Lot was further subdivided, causing the involving title to a land or an interest thereon "arising
cancellation of TCT, and the issuance of TCTs for the after the original" proceeding, which should be filed
resulting individual subdivision lots in the names of the and entitled under the original land registration case
Republic and FAI; and that the subdivision lots were under the instructions of Sec. 2 of PD 1529. Indeed, this
then sold to third parties. Section states further post registration cause of an
aggrieved party who complains of being deprived of a
The petition for cancellation was filed. Petitioner prays
land wrongfully or fraudulently titled in the name of
for other reliefs just and equitable to the premises.
another.
FDC and FAI moved to dismiss the petition for
The petitioner has come to the Court for review,
cancellation on the following grounds:
asserting the applicability of Section 108 of P.D. 1529,
(1) The serious and controversial dispute spawned and insisting that his petition filed under Section 108
by the Petition for cancellation of title is litigable in of P.D. 1529 should not be dismissed because it was
an ordinary action outside the special and limited exempt from the requirements of paying docket
jurisdiction of land registration courts. The Petition fees, of service of summons, and of the certification
is thus removed from the ambit of Sec. 108 of the against forum shopping due to its not being an
Property Registration Decree which requires, as an initiatory pleading.
indispensable element for availment of the relief
Issues:
thereunder, either unanimity of the parties or
absence of serious controversy or adverse claim. It
WON the petition for review is devoid of merit.
authorizes only amendment and alteration of
certificates of title, not cancellation thereof; Ruling:

(2) Lack of jurisdiction of the Court over the Yes.

persons of the respondents who were not validly Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 reads as follows:
served with summons but only a copy of the
Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates.
Petition;
– No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made
(3) Docket fees for the Petition have not been paid. upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate
(4) The Petition does not contain the requisite of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation
certificate of non-forum shopping. of the same by the Register of Deeds, except by order
of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered
RTC granted FDC and FAI’s motion to dismiss: owner or other person having interest in the registered
xxxx property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with
the approval of the Commissioner of Land
The petition at bench therefore bears all the elements Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon
of an action for recovery: (A) it was commenced long the ground that the registered interest of any
after the decree of registration in favor of the description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or
Respondent Republic of the Philippines had become inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated
final and incontrovertible, following the expiration of and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the
By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa
 certificate have arisen or been created; or that an 108 of P.D. No. 1529. Thus, his petition did not fall
omission or an error was made in entering a certificate under any of the situations covered by Section 108,
or any memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate and was for that reason rightly dismissed.
certificate: or that the same or any person in the
Moreover, the filing of the petition would have the
certificate has been changed or that the registered
effect of reopening the decree of registration, and could
owner has married, or, if registered as married, that the
thereby impair the rights of innocent purchasers in
marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of
good faith and for value. To reopen the decree of
heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a
registration was no longer permissible, considering that
corporation which owned registered land and has been
the one-year period to do so had long ago lapsed, and
dissolved has not yet convened the same within three
the properties covered by OCT had already been
years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable
subdivided into smaller lots whose ownership had
ground; and the court may hear and determine the
passed to third persons. Thusly, the petition tended to
petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may
violate the proviso in Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, to
order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the
wit:
entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a
certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms Provided, however, That this section shall not be
and conditions, requiring security and bond if construed to give the court authority to reopen the
necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing
however, That this section shall not be construed to shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair
give the court authority to reopen the judgment or the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a
decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or certificate for value in good faith, or his heirs and
ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other assigns without his or their written consent. Where the
interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value owner’s duplicate certificate is not presented, a similar
and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns without his petition may be filed as provided in the preceding
or their written consent. Where the owner’s duplicate section.
certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be Nor is it subject to dispute that the petition was not a
filed as provided in the preceding section. mere continuation of a previous registration
All petitions or motions filed under this section as well proceeding. Shorn of the thin disguise the petitioner
as any other provision of this decree after original gave to it, the petition was exposed as a distinct and
registration shall be filed and entitled in the original independent action to seek the reconveyance of realty
case in which the decree of registration was entered. and to recover damages. Accordingly, he should
perform jurisdictional acts, like paying the correct
Based on the provision, the proceeding for the
amount of docket fees for the filing of an initiatory
amendment and alteration of a certificate of title under
pleading, causing the service of summons on the
Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 is applicable in seven
adverse parties in order to vest personal jurisdiction
instances or situations, namely: (a) when registered
over them in the trial court, and attaching a certification
interests of any description, whether vested,
against forum shopping (as required for all initiatory
contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and
pleadings). He ought to know that his taking such
ceased; (b) when new interests have arisen or been
required acts for granted was immediately fatal to his
created which do not appear upon the certificate; (c)
petition, warranting the granting of the respondents’
when any error, omission or mistake was made in
motion to dismiss.
entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or
on any duplicate certificate; (d) when the name of any Principles/Doctrines:
person on the certificate has been changed; (e) when
1. Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 reads as follows:
the registered owner has been married, or, registered as
married, the marriage has been terminated and no right Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates.
or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; – No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made
(f) when a corporation, which owned registered land upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate
and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation
within three years after its dissolution; and (g) when of the same by the Register of Deeds, except by order
there is reasonable ground for the amendment or of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered
alteration of title. owner or other person having interest in the registered
property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with
We agree with both the CA and the RTC that the
the approval of the Commissioner of Land
petitioner was in reality seeking the reconveyance of
Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon
the property covered by OCT, not the cancellation
the ground that the registered interest of any
of a certificate of title as contemplated by Section
By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa
 description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or there is reasonable ground for the amendment
inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated or alteration of title.
and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the
certificate have arisen or been created; or that an Benjamin Cabanez vs. Ma. Josephine Cabanez
omission or an error was made in entering a certificate Facts:
or any memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate Subject of the present controversy are two (2) parcels
certificate: or that the same or any person in the of land located in Alabang Hills, Muntinlupa. The
certificate has been changed or that the registered registered owner is herein respondent, "Maria
owner has married, or, if registered as married, that the Josephine S. Cabañez, of legal age, married to [herein
marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of petitioner] Benjamin H. Cabañez."
heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a
corporation which owned registered land and has been Respondent filed with the RTC a "Petition for
dissolved has not yet convened the same within three Correction of the Name and Marital Status of the
years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable Registered Owner of TCTs.
ground; and the court may hear and determine the PRAYER
petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may
order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this
entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a Honorable Court that Petitioner's name and marital
certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms status appearing in Transfer Certificates of Title be
and conditions, requiring security and bond if corrected from "MA. JOSEPHINE S. CABAÑEZ,
necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, married to BENJAMIN H. CABAÑEZ" to MARIE
however, That this section shall not be construed to JOSEPHINE C. SOLANO, single" as it is the true
give the court authority to reopen the judgment or and actual status of petitioner.
decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or RTC granted petition. Accordingly, the Register of
ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other Deeds is directed to cause the correction of the name
interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and civil status of the registered owner.
and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns without his
or their written consent. Where the owner’s duplicate Petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment
certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be of Judgment assailing the above Decision of the RTC
filed as provided in the preceding section. on the ground that the said trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because
All petitions or motions filed under this section as well respondent's petition was not published in a newspaper
as any other provision of this decree after original of general circulation and that petitioner and other
registration shall be filed and entitled in the original persons who may have interest in the subject properties
case in which the decree of registration was entered. were not served summons.
2. The proceeding for the amendment and The CA ruled, among others, that respondent's petition
alteration of a certificate of title under Section for correction of her name and marital status as
108 of P.D. No. 1529 is applicable in seven appearing in the subject TCTs should have been
instances or situations, namely: (a) when published in accordance with Rule 108 of the Rules of
registered interests of any description, whether Court and that respondent failed to present sufficient
vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, evidence to prove compliance with such requirement.
have terminated and ceased; (b) when new The appellate court also held that respondent also failed
interests have arisen or been created which do to serve summons upon petitioner, which is in violation
not appear upon the certificate; (c) when any of the latter's right to due process and of the principle
error, omission or mistake was made in of fair play.
entering a certificate or any memorandum
thereon or on any duplicate certificate; (d) Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration
when the name of any person on the certificate contending, among others, that the provisions of PD
has been changed; (e) when the registered 1529, and not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, should
owner has been married, or, registered as be applied in the present case; posting of the notice of
married, the marriage has been terminated and hearing of respondent's petition is deemed constructive
no right or interest of heirs or creditors will notice to the whole world, including petitioner; the
thereby be affected; (f) when a corporation, petition filed by respondent is an action in rem where
which owned registered land and has been jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
dissolved, has not conveyed the same within prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court,
three years after its dissolution; and (g) when
By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa
 provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the MATTER OF THE PETITION IN THE ABSENCE
res. OF SUMMONS AND PUBLICATION.
CA agreed with respondent and ruled that PD 1529 is H.WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS AN
the governing law and that there is nothing under the INDISPENSABLE PARTY IN THE PETITION FOR
pertinent provisions of the said law which states that CORRECTION OF NAME AND MARITAL
publication is a requirement for the RTC to acquire STATUS IN THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF
jurisdiction over respondent's petition. The CA also TITLE NO. 154627 AND 154628.
ruled that petitioner failed to prove the existence of
I.WHETHER OR NOT LEANDRA D. CABAÑEZ IS
extrinsic fraud as a ground for annulment of the
ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND SERVICE OF
assailed judgment of the RTC.
SUMMONS BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF
Petitioner filed for a petition for review on certiorari THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATIY
based on the following grounds: CITY-BRANCH 137 TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
PARCELS OF LAND LEGALLY BELONGED TO
A.WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT
THEIR CONJUGAL PROPERTY.
OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN AMENDING
ITS ORIGINAL DECISION DATED JANUARY 27, J.WHETHER OR NOT AN AFFIDAVIT THE
2011 CONSIDERING THAT THE REQUIREMENTS CONTENTS OF WHICH WAS NOT TESTIFIED TO
OF PUBLICATION AND SUMMONS WERE NOT HAS PROBATIVE VALUE.
COMPLIED WITH.
K.WHETHER OR NOT THE SECURITY OR BOND
B.WHETHER OR NOT THE PROCEEDING MENTIONED IN SECTION 108 OF PD 1529
PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 108 OF BEFORE ENTRY OF CORRECTION OR
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1529 IS SUMMARY ALTERATION MAY BE MADE IS MANDATORY
IN NATURE ALBEIT THE EVIDENT PRESENCE. TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THIRD
OF OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES THAT MAY PERSON.
BE AFFECTED BY THE JUDGMENT AS A
L.WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT
RESULT OF EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS.
OF APPEALS [IS] PROCEDURALLY CORRECT IN
C.WHETHER OR NOT THE RULING OF THE ADMITTING THE SUPPLEMENTAL
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE MEMORANDUM OF THE RESPONDENT
OF CHAN V. COURT OF APPEALS (298 SCRA 713, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION WAS
733) APPLIES IN THE INSTANT CASE WHERE IT ALREADY LONG SUBMITTED FOR DECISION.
WAS RULED THAT MERE NOTICE TO THE
Issues:
REGISTER OF DEEDS WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
WON petitioner’s petition for review holds merit.
COMPLIANCE.
Ruling:
D.WHETHER OR NOT AMENDMENT AND
Yes but for reasons which are not identical as those
ALTERATION OF CERTIFICATES OF TITLE
espoused by petitioner.
PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 108 OF PD
1529 IS AN IN REM PROCEEDINGS THAT At the outset, it bears to reiterate that the CA ruled on
REQUIRES STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE the basis of the provisions of Presidential Decree No.
PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT. 1529 (PD 1529), otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree. Specifically, the CA cited
E.WHETHER OR NOT SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF
Sections 2 and 108 of the said law, which provide as
RULE 108 OF THE RULES OF COURT
follows:
SUPPLETORILY APPLY TO THE PROCEEDINGS
PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 108 OF PD Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings;
1529 WHEREIN THE REQUIREMENT OF jurisdiction of courts. Judicial proceedings for the
PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall
be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted
F.WHETHER OR NOT THE PHRASE "THE COURT
principles underlying the Torrens system.
MAY HEAR AND DETERMINE THE PETITION
AFTER NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST" Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive
IN SECTION 108 OF PD 1529 INCLUDES jurisdiction over all applications for original
PUBLICATION AND SERVICE OF SUMMONS. registration of title to lands, including improvements
and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after
G.WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO
original registration of title, with power to hear and
ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
determine all questions arising upon such applications
By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa
 or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall under the above quoted Section 2 of PD 1529.
furnish the Land Registration Commission with two Moreover, respondent's petition was filed with the RTC
certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and for the purpose of correcting supposed errors which
decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for were committed when entries were made in the subject
land registration, with the exception of stenographic TCTs, as contemplated under Section 108 of the same
notes, within five days from the filing or issuance law.
thereof.
However, under settled jurisprudence, the enumerated
Section 108. Amendment, and alteration of certificates. instances for amendment or alteration of a
No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made certificate of title under Section 108 of PD 1529 are
upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate non-controversial in nature. They are limited to
of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation issues so patently insubstantial as not to be genuine
of the same be Register of Deeds, except by order of issues. The proceedings thereunder are summary in
the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner nature, contemplating insertions of mistakes which are
of other person having an interest in registered only clerical, but certainly not controversial issues.
property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with
As early as the case of Tangunan v. Republic of the
the approval of the Commissioner of Land
Philippines, which was later cited in Angeles v. Razon,
Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon
et al., this Court, sitting en banc, ruled that:
the ground that the registered interests of any
description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or the lower court did not err in finding that it lacks
inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated jurisdiction to entertain the present petition for the
and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the simple reason that it involves a controversial issue
certificate have arisen or been created; or that an which takes this case out of the scope of Section 112
omission or error was made in entering a certificate or of Act No. 496 [now Section 108 of PD 1529]. While
any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate this section, among other things, authorized a
certificate; or that the same or any person on the person in interest to ask the court for any erasure,
certificate has been changed; or that the registered alteration, or amendment of a certificate of title
owner has married, or, if registered as married, that the "upon the ground that registered interests of any
marriage has been terminated and no right or interests description, whether vested, contingent expectant, or
of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a inchoate, have terminated and ceased", and
corporation which owned registered land and has been apparently the petition comes under its scope, such
dissolved has not convened the same within three years relief can only be granted if there is unanimity
after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable among the parties, or there is no adverse claim or
ground; and the court may hear and determine the serious objection on the part of any party in interest;
petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may otherwise the case becomes controversial and
order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the should be threshed out in an ordinary case or in the
entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a case where the incident properly belongs. Thus, it
certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms was held that "It is not proper to cancel an original
and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, certificate of Torrens title issued exclusively in the
as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this name of a deceased person, and to issue a new
section shall not be construed to give the court certificate in the name of his heirs, under the
authority to reopen the judgment or decree of provisions of Section 112 of Act No. 496, when the
registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered surviving spouse claims right of ownership over the
by the court which shall impair the title or other interest land covered by said certificate." And, in another
of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in case, where there was a serious controversy between
good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their the parties as to the right of ownership over the
written consent. Where the owner's duplicate certificate properties involved, this court held, "that following
is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as the principle laid down in the decision above cited,
provided in the preceding section. the issues herein should be ventilated in a regular
action."
All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well
as under any other provision of this Decree after In the present case, the Court notes that in a separate
original registration shall be filed and entitled in the action for annulment of title and recovery of ownership
original case in which the decree or registration was filed by petitioner's wife against respondent, the RTC,
entered. made a categorical finding that petitioner and his wife
are the lawful owners of the subject properties and
The Court notes that the petition was clearly one which
ordering respondent to surrender possession thereof to
was filed after original registration of title, as provided
By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa
 the said spouses. This RTC judgment was later procedural laws as well as other rules of court amply
affirmed by the CA. Respondent, on the other hand, provide.
claims that she together with petitioner and his wife
In the present case, it is now apparent that before the
subsequently executed an amicable settlement, which
trial court can alter the description of the civil status of
was approved by the RTC, wherein petitioner's wife
respondent in the transfer certificates of title in
waived her rights and interests over the said properties.
question, it will have to receive evidence of and
She also alleged that petitioner executed an Affidavit
determine respondent's civil status. This requires a full
of Declaration Against Interest, indicating that he has
dress trial rendering the summary proceedings
no right or interest over the subject properties.
envisaged in Section 108 of PD 1529 inadequate.
Petitioner, nonetheless, claims that he executed a
subsequent Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Interest, Finally, it is settled that a land registration case is a
claiming that he was deceived by respondent into proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction in rem cannot be
signing the said Affidavit of Declaration Against acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the land
Interest and that he was seriously ill at the time that he through publication and service of notice. However, as
affixed his signature. found by the CA, respondent failed to comply with the
said requirements. In all cases where the authority of
From the foregoing, there is no question that there is a
the courts to proceed is conferred by a statute, and
serious objection and an adverse claim on the part of an
when the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is
interested party as shown by petitioner's subsequent
mandatory, it must be strictly complied with, or the
execution of his Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Interest.
proceedings will be utterly void. It is wrong for the CA
The absence of unanimity among the parties is also
to rule in its Amended Decision that publication is not
evidenced by petitioner's petition seeking the
a jurisdictional requirement for the RTC to take
annulment of the RTC Decision which granted
cognizance of respondent's petition. The appellate
respondent's petition for correction of entries in the
court's reliance on the case of Chan v. Court of Appeals
subject TCTs. These objections and claims necessarily
is misplaced. In the said case, this Court considered the
entail litigious and controversial matters making it
notice to the Register of Deeds as substantial
imperative to conduct an exhaustive examination of the
compliance with the notice and publication
factual and legal bases of the parties' respective
requirements of the law simply because in the petition
positions. Certainly, such objective cannot be
for correction filed by the petitioner therein, only the
accomplished by the court through the abbreviated
said petitioner and the Register of Deeds had an interest
action under Section 108 of PD 1529. A complete
in the correction of titles sought for. This Court ruled
determination of the issues in the present case can only
that there is therefore no necessity to notify other
be achieved if petitioner and his wife are impleaded in
parties who had no interest to protect in the said
an adversarial proceeding.
petition. This is not true, however, in the present case.
In addition, the Court finds apropos to the instant case As discussed above, on the bases of petitioner's serious
the ruling in the similar case of Martinez v. Evangelista objection and adverse claim, it is apparent that he has
where the petitioner in the said case, being the an interest to protect. Thus, the ruling in Chan finds no
registered owner of certain real properties, sought to application in the instant case.
strike out the words "married to" appearing in the
Principles/Doctrines:
Transfer Certificates of Title covering the said
properties on the ground that the same was so entered 1. Section 108. Amendment, and alteration of
by reason of clerical error or oversight and in lieu certificates. No erasure, alteration, or
thereof the word "single" be substituted, which amendment shall be made upon the registration
according to the petitioner in the said case is his true book after the entry of a certificate of title or of
and correct civil status. This Court held that: a memorandum thereon and the attestation of
the same be Register of Deeds, except by order
changes in the citizenship of a person or in his status
of the proper Court of First Instance. A
from legitimate to illegitimate or from married to
registered owner of other person having an
not married are substantial as well as controversial,
interest in registered property, or, in proper
which can only be established in an appropriate
cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval
adversary proceeding as a remedy for the
of the Commissioner of Land Registration,
adjudication of real and justifiable controversies
may apply by petition to the court upon the
involving actual conflict of rights the final
ground that the registered interests of any
determination of which depends upon the resolution of
description, whether vested, contingent,
issues of nationality, paternity, filiation or legitimacy
expectant or inchoate appearing on the
of the marital status for which existing substantive and
certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that
By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa
 new interest not appearing upon the certificate which depends upon the resolution of issues of
have arisen or been created; or that an omission nationality, paternity, filiation or legitimacy of
or error was made in entering a certificate or the marital status for which existing
any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate substantive and procedural laws as well as
certificate; or that the same or any person on other rules of court amply provide.
the certificate has been changed; or that the
Coombs vs. Castaneda
registered owner has married, or, if registered
Facts:
as married, that the marriage has been
terminated and no right or interests of heirs or This case stemmed from a petition for annulment of
creditors will thereby be affected; or that a judgment to declare the Decision RTC as null and void,
corporation which owned registered land and filed by herein petitioner Coombs before the CA. RTC
has been dissolved has not convened the same rendered declaring the lost owner's duplicate copy of
within three years after its dissolution; or upon Transfer Certificate of Title as null and void.
any other reasonable ground; and the court Accordingly, the Register of Deeds is ordered to issue
may hear and determine the petition after a new owner's duplicate copy of the said TCT under the
notice to all parties in interest, and may order same terms and conditions as the original thereof and
the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, to include thereon all annotations which have not been
the entry or cancellation of a memorandum lawfully ordered cancelled by the Court upon payment
upon a certificate, or grant any other relief of all fees prescribed by law.
upon such terms and conditions, requiring
Petitioner Coombs narrated in the said petition that she
security or bond if necessary, as it may
is the owner of the real property covered by TCT; that
consider proper; Provided, however, That this
when she tried to pay the real property tax due relative
section shall not be construed to give the court
to the real property covered by TCT, she was told that
authority to reopen the judgment or decree of
said real property was no longer listed under her name;
registration, and that nothing shall be done or
that upon further verification, she came to know that
ordered by the court which shall impair the title
TCT had already been cancelled and had been replaced
or other interest of a purchaser holding a
by TCT issued in the name of herein respondent
certificate for value and in good faith, or his
Santos; that was ordered cancelled by the RTC in a
heirs and assigns, without his or their written
Decision in LRC Case; that she neither authorized
consent. Where the owner's duplicate
Castaneda to file petition for issuance of a second
certificate is not presented, a similar petition
owner's duplicate copy of TCT, nor asked her to sell
may be filed as provided in the preceding
the subject property to herein respondent Santos; that
section.
Santos, in tum, sold the same to herein respondents
spouses Leviste; that the spouses Leviste executed a
All petitions or motions filed under this
real estate mortgage over the subject property in favor
Section as well as under any other provision of
of herein respondent BPI.
this Decree after original registration shall be
filed and entitled in the original case in which Petitioner Coombs anchored her prayer for the
the decree or registration was entered. annulment of the R TC Decision on the ground that,
2. The enumerated instances for amendment or since the owner's duplicate copy of TCT had never
alteration of a certificate of title under Section been lost as it had always been in her custody, the RTC
108 of PD 1529 are non-controversial in did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of
nature. They are limited to issues so patently LRC Case.
insubstantial as not to be genuine issues. The
CA dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment.–
proceedings thereunder are summary in nature,
contemplating insertions of mistakes which are A careful reading of the petition reveals that there is no
only clerical, but certainly not controversial allegation in the petition that the petitioner has failed to
issues. avail of any of the aforementioned remedies in Section
3. Changes in the citizenship of a person or in his 1 through no fault of his before instituting the herein
status from legitimate to illegitimate or from petition. This is an important condition for the
married to not married are substantial as well availment of this remedy. The petition is also not
as controversial, which can only be established sufficient in substance. Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the
in an appropriate adversary proceeding as a Rules of Civil Procedure, the grounds for Annulment
remedy for the adjudication of real and of Judgment are: (a) lack of jurisdiction of the lower
justifiable controversies involving actual court; and (b) extrinsic fraud. Obviously, the ground
conflict of rights the final determination of relied upon in the present action is extrinsic fraud.
By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa
 However, the petitioner failed to state the facts
WON CA erred when it dismissed outright petitioner
constituting extrinsic fraud as a ground. Since the
Coombs' petition for annulment of judgment.
petitioner failed to avail of any of aforementioned
remedies in Section 1 without justification and that the Ruling:
ground relied upon was not substantiated, this petition
Yes. The grounds for annulment of judgment are set
has no prima facie merit.
forth in Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court:
Petitioner Coombs moved for the reconsideration of the
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. - The annulment
above-quoted Resolution. She insisted that her petition
may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud
was grounded on lack of jurisdiction, not extrinsic
and lack of jurisdiction.
fraud. In fact, she explicitly spelled out in her petition
that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was
matter in LRC Case because the owner's duplicate copy availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion
of TCT was never lost. for new trial or petition for relief.
CA denied the said motion and explained that the RTC Contrary to the findings of the CA, the Petition for
has jurisdiction over all proceedings involving title to Annulment of Judgment filed by petitioner Coombs
real property and land registration cases. was clearly grounded on lack of jurisdiction of the RTC
over the subject matter of the case, and not extrinsic
Thus, it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of LRC
fraud.
Case. It further held that petitioner Coombs failed to
append affidavits of witnesses or documents Simply stated, petitioner Coombs sought to annul the
supporting her cause of action as required by Section 4, RTC Decision for being rendered without jurisdiction.
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. It cited Veneracion v. According to her, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction
Mancilla, where it was held that failure to append the over the subject matter of LRC Case -one for the
necessary documents may prompt the appellate court to reconstitution of a lost certificate of title-because the
dismiss the petition outright or deny the same due owner's duplicate copy of TCT was never lost in the
course. first place, which argument has been upheld by the
Court in a catena of cases that she cited to support her
Hence, the present petition raising the following
assertion.
arguments:
It is doctrinal that jurisdiction over the nature of the
First, petitioner Coombs asserts that she was never
action or subject matter is conferred by law. Section
notified about the proceedings in LRC Case. Being a
10 of Republic Act No. 26 vests the RTC with
stranger to the case, she could not have availed of any
jurisdiction over the judicial reconstitution of a lost
of the remedies mentioned in Section 1, Rule 4 7 of the
or destroyed owner's duplicate of the certificate of
Rules of Court to question the RTC Decision. She
title. However, the Court of Appeals erred when it
claims that she only found out about the RTC's decision
ruled that the subject matter of LRC Case was
in the course of paying for real estate taxes due on the
within the RTC's jurisdiction, being a court of
subject property. By that time, the R TC decision had
general jurisdiction.
already become final and executory. Thus, the failure
to allege these circumstances is not fatal to her petition. In a long line of cases, the Court has held that the
RTC has no jurisdiction when the certificate sought
Second, petitioner Coombs maintains that the RTC did
to be reconstituted was never lost or destroyed but
not have jurisdiction over the subject matter in LRC
is in fact in the possession of another person. In
Case because the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT
other words, the fact of loss of the duplicate
sought to be annulled was never lost and had always
certificate is jurisdictional.
been in her possession.
Thus, petitioner Coombs' mere allegation that the
Third, petitioner Coombs insists that she appended all
owner's duplicate copy of TCT was never lost and has
the relevant documents to support her Petition for
in fact always been with her gave rise to a prima
Annulment of Judgment. But she did not append any
facie case of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the
witnesses' affidavits because she does not have any
proceedings in LRC Case. This is exactly the situation
witness other than herself. Besides, all the facts that
a petition for annulment of judgment aims to remedy.
may be set out in a separate affidavit are already
averred in the present petition. Thus, lack thereof Moreover, the Court of Appeals' dismissal based on
should not result in the petition's outright dismissal. technical grounds (i.e., failure to allege that she did not
avail of a motion for new trial, appeal, petition for
Issues: relief, or other appropriate remedies and failure to
append the affidavits of witnesses or documents
By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa
 supporting the cause of action of her petition) was also further argued that if an owner's duplicate TCT has
erroneous. not been lost, but is in fact possessed by another
person, then the reconstituted title is void and the
First, when a petition for annulment of judgment is
court that rendered the decision never acquired
grounded on lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner need not
jurisdiction.
allege that the ordinary remedy of new trial or
reconsideration of the judgment sought to be annulled
CA dismissed Tan's petition outright on the grounds
are no longer available through no fault of her own.
that the petition suffered from procedural infirmities
This is because a judgment rendered without
and lacked substantial merit. The CA observed that:
jurisdiction is fundamentally void. Thus, it may be
(1) the verification and certification of non-forum
questioned any time unless laches has already set in.
shopping were executed alone by Tan Po Chu without
Second, petitioner Coombs in fact was able to attach to showing that she had the authority to sign for and on
her petition documents supporting her cause of action. behalf of the corporation; (2) Tan's actual address was
As we ruled in Tan Po Chu v. Court of Appeals, if not indicated in the petition as required by Rule 46,
allegations of this nature turned out to be true, the Section 3; and (3) the attached copy of the owner's
duplicate TCT No. 157923 was not a certified true
RTC Decision would be void and the Court of
copy. The CA also brushed aside Tan's substantive
Appeals would have been duty-bound to strike it
down. Thus, the appellate court erred when it brushed argument. It held that the RTC acquired jurisdiction
aside this duty and dismissed the case outright based on over the case after complying with the notice and
a strict interpretation of technical rules. hearing requirements under Section 109 of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 or the Property
Principles/Doctrines: Registration Decree.
1. Jurisdiction over the nature of the action or
subject matter is conferred by law. Tan moved for reconsideration. CA denied the
Tan Po Chu vs. CA motion, insisting that Tan's assertion that the RTC
Facts: lacked jurisdiction was without merit. Tan argues that
the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling
Fiber Technology Corporation was a Philippine that her allegation of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction
corporation. It was also the registered owner of a was not meritorious. She maintains that the
parcel of land. The SEC allegedly revoked respondents misled the RTC because: (1) Felix and
FiberTech's registration. Respondent Chingkoe Rosita never became 100% owners of FiberTech; and
executed an affidavit of loss of TCT allegedly on (2) they knew that the "missing" owner's duplicate
behalf of FiberTech. FiberTech - supposedly was in her possession. Pursuant to the cases of New
represented by respondent Rodrigo Garcia- filed a Durawood, Serra Serra, Strait Times v. CA,
petition for the reissuance/replacement of its owner's and Demetriou v. CA, the RTC never acquired
duplicate of TCT. The petition was based on the jurisdiction to reconstitute the owner's duplicate TCT.
affidavit of loss that Felix executed.
The respondents counter that the CA did not commit
RTC granted the petition. It declared the owner's grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition.
duplicate copy of TCT as lost and ordered its Further, assuming the CA decided in a manner
reissuance. contrary to prevailing jurisprudence, then it only
committed an error of law and not an error of
Tan Po Chu - mother of Fibertech's incorporators jurisdiction. They conclude that Tan's resort to a
Faustino and respondent Felix Chingkoe - filed a special civil action of certiorari was unwarranted
petition before the CA for annulment of judgment because the correct remedy would have been to appeal
against the RTC's decision. Tan alleged: (1) that the the dismissal of her petition.
missing owner's duplicate of TCT was in her custody Issues:
as the responsible officer of FiberTech; (2) that Felix 1. WON Tan asserted the right remedy.
was aware of this fact; (3) that Felix committed
perjury when he executed the Affidavit of Loss; (4) Ruling:
that Felix and Rosita had not acquired 100% 1. No. At the outset, we observe that Tan
ownership of FiberTech; (5) that Rosita and Rodrigo resorted to the wrong remedy by filing a
Garcia were not even stockholders of record in petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The.
Fibertech; and (6) that the respondents had no Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the CA to
authority to file the petition for reissuance of the dismiss outright a petition for annulment of
owner's duplicate copy on behalf of FiberTech. Tan judgment if the court finds no substantial
By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa
 merit in the petition. under Section 109 of P.D. 1529.

Section 5. Action by the court. - Should the court find The CA completely missed the point because Tan did
no substantial merit in the petition, the same may be not assail the RTC's jurisdiction by alleging
dismissed outright with specific reasons for such noncompliance with the requirements of notice and
dismissal. hearing; she questioned the RTC's jurisdiction over
the res by claiming that the allegedly lost owner's
Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, the duplicate was, in fact, not lost but was in her custody.
same shall be given due course and summons shall be Therefore, the RTC's compliance with Section 109 of
served on the respondent. P.D. 1529 was irrelevant.
Accordingly, outright dismissal of Tan's petition is
within the jurisdiction of the CA and its correctness We have consistently held that when the owner's
may be reviewed through an appeal duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is
by certiorari under Rule 45. in fact in the possession of another person, then the
reconstituted certificate is void because the court
Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy of last resort for failed to acquire jurisdiction over the subject
when another remedy is present, certiorari is not matter - the allegedly lost owner's duplicate. The
available. It is a limited form of review confined to correct remedy for the registered owner against an
errors of jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one uncooperative possessor is to compel the surrender
where the officer or tribunal acted without or in of the owner's duplicate title through an action for
excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of replevin.
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
On the other hand, an error of judgment is one which A judgment void for want of jurisdiction is no
the court may commit in the exercise of its judgment at all. It has been held to be a lawless thing,
jurisdiction. They only involve errors in the court or which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or
tribunal's appreciation of the facts and of the law. ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its ugly
Errors of jurisdiction are reviewable on certiorari; head. It may be attacked at any time.
errors of judgment, only by appeal.
If Tan's allegation were true, then the RTC's judgment
Ordinarily, this Court would have dismissed the would be void and the CA would have been duty-
petition outright for being an improper remedy. As a bound to strike it down. The CA could have nipped
general rule, certiorari will not lie as a substitute for this anomalous situation in the bud before it could
an appeal. However, an exception to this rule is where cause any harm to innocent third persons. However,
public welfare and the advancement of public policy the CA opted to turn its back on this duty and dismiss
so dictates. the case outright based on rigid technicalities and on
irrelevant considerations regardless of the
This Court cannot ignore the implications if the implications to the general public.
petitioner's allegations - that she has the original
owner's duplicate TCT of the subject lot and that the Moreover, the CA's dismissal based on technical
SEC revoked FiberTech's registration in 2003 - are grounds was erroneous. The CA raised the following
true. There will currently exist two owner's duplicate procedural infirmities:
TCTs over the same property possessed by two ...(1) the verification and certification of non-forum
contending factions in an intra-corporate dispute of a shopping was executed alone by affiant Tan Po Chu
defunct corporation. This anomalous situation can without any showing that [s]he had the authority to sign
potentially bring considerable harm to the general for and in behalf of petitioner corporation pursuant to
public and to the integrity of our Torrens system. This Sec. 5(1), Rule 7 and Sec. 4(3), Rule 47 of the 1997
Court, therefore, cannot simply leave the parties as Revised Rules of Civil Procedure considering that [s]he
they were. is one of the incorporators and stockholders of her co-
petitioner corporation; (2) The actual address of
The CA committed a grave error when it brushed petitioner Tan Po Chu is not indicated in the petition as
aside Tan's argument that the RTC rendered its required by Sec. 3 (1), Rule 46 of the same Rule; (3)
decision without jurisdiction. It ruled that the The copy of the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 157923
replacement of a lost duplicate certificate is a is not certified as a true copy of the original owner's
proceeding in rem, directed against the whole world; duplicate by the proper government agency as alleged
therefore, the RTC acquired jurisdiction when it by the petitioners.
complied with the notice and hearing requirements
By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa
 First, we note that Tan alleged that FiberTech's Gocheco vs. Estacio
corporate existence had already ceased when the SEC Facts:
revoked its corporate registration, and that she was a
Cesario Gocheco is a legitimate son of Paulino P.
trustee of the corporation for the purpose of its
Gocheco registered owner of a parcel of land as
dissolution. We note further that the petition for
evidenced by OCT of the Register of Deeds for the said
annulment was filed in the names of both FiberTech
province. The owner's duplicate copy of the said
and Tan Po Chu.
original certificate of title was lost, and
notwithstanding diligent search to ascertain its
While FiberTech may no longer have judicial
whereabouts, the said owner's duplicate copy has not
personality to initiate the suit or authorize Tan Po Chu
been found. However, in the records of the Register of
to file the case, Tan Po Chu remained a real party-in-
Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur, the original of the above
interest as the lawful possessor of the allegedly lost
number certificate of title is found intact and complete.
owner's duplicate TCT. The respondents could not
legally oust her of this possession by reconstituting the Cesario Gocheco, in his capacity as heir of the
owner's duplicate instead of filing an action registered owner, filed a petition before the trial court
for replevin. Therefore, the verification and to require the Register of Deeds to issue another
certification of non-forum shopping remained valid owner's duplicate copy of the O.C.T., in lieu of the
with respect to Tan Po Chu even though it might have owners copy which was lost, copy of which petition
been defective with respect to FiberTech. was served to the Register of Deeds, thru the Provincial
Fiscal. Francisco T. Estacio and others opposed the
Second, we also note that Tan Po Chu submitted her petition, claiming that they have been in continuous,
address in her motion for reconsideration to cure the peaceful, lawful, public and adverse possession of the
defect in the petition. Her motion for reconsideration property covered by O.C.T. Petitioner replied, stating
substantially complies with Rule 46, Section 3 of the that the oppositors cannot intervene in the petition for
Rules of Court. want of personality Industrial that to allow them to
claim ownership and/or possession of the subject
Finally, a petition for annulment of judgment only property would defeat and destroy the indefeasibility of
requires the inclusion of a clearly legible duplicate title guaranteed and protected by Act No. 496.
original or certified true copy of the judgment, order,
Petitioner appeared in Court and submitted his oral and
resolution, or ruling subject thereof. It does not require
documentary evidence. Notwithstanding notice of
the petitioner to annex certified true copies or duplicate
hearing served upon them, the oppositors or their
originals of his evidence to the petition because these
counsel failed to appear. On the same day, however, the
may be presented during the evidentiary hearings of the
trial court entered an order suspending hearing of the
case. To our mind, none of the procedural infirmities
petition and required the petitioner to publish within 30
warranted the CA's outright dismissal of the case.
days his petition or to file a testate or intestate
Principles/Doctrines: proceeding, and to secure the appointment of a legal
1. When the owner's duplicate certificate of title representative to the estate of registered owner and the
has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession ultimate declaration of heirs. For failure of petitioners
of another person, then the reconstituted to comply with the order, the oppositors filed an ex-
certificate is void because the court failed to parte motion to dismiss the petition. The Court,
acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter - instead, gave the petitioner 10 days within which to
the allegedly lost owner's duplicate. The show cause why the petition should not be dismissed.
correct remedy for the registered owner against
an uncooperative possessor is to compel the Petitioner-appellant alleges that the trial court erred (1)
surrender of the owner's duplicate title through in requiring him to publish the petition for the issuance
an action for replevin. of a new owner's duplicate copy of O.C.T.; (2) in
2. A judgment void for want of jurisdiction is no requiring him to secure the appointment of a legal
judgment at all. It has been held to be a lawless representative to the estate of the original registered
thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and owner, Paulino P. Gocheco and to obtain a judicial
slain at sight, or ignored wherever and declaration of his lawful heirs before giving due course
whenever it exhibits its ugly head. It may be to his petition and (3) in dismissing the petition.
attacked at any time. The petition is only for the issuance of an owner's
duplicate copy of O.C.T., in lieu of the one that was
lost.
Issues:
By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa
 WON petition is one for reconstitution and one which
1. Section 109 of Act No. 496, as amended,
requires publishing of notice and securing of the
provides:
appointment of a legal representative of the estate and
the declaration of lawful heirs of the deceased. SEC. 109. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed
Ruling: or cannot be produced by a guarantee, heir, devisee,
assignee, or other person applying for the entry of a
Section 109 of Act No. 496, as amended, provides: new certificate to him or for the registration of any
SEC. 109. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed instrument, a suggestion of the fact of such loss or
or cannot be produced by a guarantee, heir, devisee, destruction may be filed by the registered owner or
assignee, or other person applying for the entry of a other person in interest and registered. The court may
new certificate to him or for the registration of any thereupon, upon the petition of the registered owner or
instrument, a suggestion of the fact of such loss or other persons in interest, after notice and hearing
destruction may be filed by the registered owner or direct the issue of a new duplicate certificate, which
other person in interest and registered. The court may shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued
thereupon, upon the petition of the registered owner or in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all
other persons in interest, after notice and hearing respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the
direct the issue of a new duplicate certificate, which original duplicate for all the purposes of this act.
shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued 2. The oppositors-appellees, who had not chosen
in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all to file their brief, have no personality to
respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the intervene and their grounds of intervention,
original duplicate for all the purposes of this act. namely, that they have been in public,
In view of the existence of the complete record in the continuous, peaceful, adverse and lawful
Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur, of the possession of the property is immaterial,
original of the certificate of title in question, which impertinent and of no consequence. Their
appears in Book of the said Register of Deeds' Office claim of ownership or possession of the
and of the fact that the present petition is not one for property can be properly instituted in a
reconstitution as provided by Republic Act No. 26, separate, independent and ordinary civil
there is no necessity for publishing notice of the action.
hearing thereof. And the petition, coming as it does,
under the provisions of Section 109, aforequoted,
there is likewise no need to first secure the
appointment of a legal representative of the estate
and the declaration of the lawful heirs of the
deceased Paulino P. Gocheco. The petition does not
at all seek the distribution of the decedents estate. The
owner's duplicate copy to be issued will be only an
owner's duplicate copy of the O.C.T. and the petitioner
is a person in interest is he is a legal heir, according to
his uncontroverted verified petition.
The oppositors-appellees, who had not chosen to file
their brief, have no personality to intervene and their
grounds of intervention, namely, that they have been in
public, continuous, peaceful, adverse and lawful
possession of the property is immaterial, impertinent
and of no consequence, in the present proceeding. Their
claim of ownership or possession of the property can
be properly instituted in a separate, independent and
ordinary civil action.
The RTC, appealed from, is set aside, and another
entered, directing the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga
del Sur, to issue to the petitioner a new owner's
duplicate copy which was lost.
Principles/Doctrines:

By: Caryssa Therese C. Verzosa