Case Digests Rexlon Realty
Case Digests Rexlon Realty
Case Digests Rexlon Realty
G.R. No. 128412 March 15, 2002 be characterized as extrinsic fraud so as to merit the
REXLON REALTY GROUP, INC., petitioner, vs. THE annulment of the trial court’s decision granting respondent
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARTURO T. DE David’s petition for the issuance of new owner’s duplicate
GUIA, RTC JUDGE (Cavite City), BRANCH 16, ALEX L. certificates of title of TCT Nos. T-52537 and T-52538.
DAVID, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE
OF CAVITE AND PARAMOUNT DEVELOPMENT RULING:
CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES ponente: DE SC ruled in favor of the petitioner. The petition for
LEON, JR., J.: review was GRANTED, and the assailed Decision of the Court
of Appeals dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment
FACTS: was REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the new owner’s
Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. (Rexlon, for brevity) duplicate copies of TCTs in the name of Alex L. David issued
entered into an agreement with Alex L. David for the purchase by virtue of the said Decision of the Regional Trial Court as
of the two (2) parcels of land as evidenced by a document well as the replacement thereof, namely, in the name of
denominated as "Absolute Deed of Sale". Paramount Development Corporation of the Philippines, are
David filed with the RTC of Cavite City, Branch 16, declared VOID.
a petition for the issuance of owner’s duplicate copies of TCT Pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 47 of the 1997 Revised
Nos. T-72537 and T-72538 to replace the owner’s duplicate Rules of Civil Procedure, the grounds to annul a judgment of a
copies which were allegedly lost. David alleged that he lower court are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
entrusted his owner’s duplicate copies to a friend and member SC found that the issuance of new owner’s duplicate
of his staff for the purpose of showing them to a prospective certificates of title by the trial court in favor of respondent David
developer but were misplaced and that said owner’s duplicate is indeed tainted with extrinsic fraud. David in his petition
copies have not been delivered to any person or entity to before the RTC alleged that the Owner’s Duplicate of the
secure payment or performance of any obligation. aforementioned Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-75237 and
An initial hearing proceeded ex-parte inasmuch as No. T-75238 were lost and such have not been delivered to
nobody appeared to oppose the same and the RTC directed any person or entity to secure the payment or performance of
the Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite, upon any obligation whatsoever or used for any illegal or fraudulent
payment of the corresponding fees, to issue another duplicate transaction. However, the document denominated as "Absolute
copies of TCTs. Deed of Sale" where the signature of respondent David as
Rexlon then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition seller has not been controverted, states that the latter has fully
for annulment of the said Decision of the trial court on the received payment for the said sale and has bound himself to
ground that David allegedly employed fraud and deception in cede and deliver to Rexlon, as vendee
securing the replacement owner’s duplicate copies of the David was therefore well aware that there was no
subject TCTs; that there was absence of due process; and, truth in his allegation in his petition for issuance of new owner’s
that the decision of the trial court was tainted with grave abuse duplicate copies of said certificates of title on the false and
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. fraudulent ground that his owner’s duplicate copies of TCT
The petition was later amended, with leave of court, to Nos. T-52537 and T-52538 were lost and that they were not
include as respondent Paramount Development Corporation of delivered to any person to secure the performance of any
the Philippines (Paramount, for brevity) upon discovering that obligation.
David had executed on September 20, 1994, a deed of sale of Extrinsic fraud contemplates a situation where a
the subject parcels of land in favor of Paramount. and as a litigant commits acts outside of the trial of the case, "the effect
result of that sale, new certificates of title designated as TCT of which prevents a party from having a trial, a real contest, or
Nos. T-525664 and T-525665 were issued in the name of from presenting all of his case to the court, or where it operates
Paramount in lieu of TCTs in the name of Alex L. David. upon matters pertaining, not to the judgment itself, but to the
Court of Appeals dismissed the petition of Rexlon, manner in which it was procured so that there is not a fair
for lack of merit. CA held as insignificant the contention of submission of the controversy."11 The overriding consideration
petitioner Rexlon that David had misled the trial court in is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant
alleging that his owner’s duplicate copies were lost as the prevented a party from having his day in court. Hence, the
decision sought to be annulled concerns the issuance of Court has held that extrinsic fraud is present in cases where a
owner’s duplicate copies of TCT Nos. T-75237 and T-75238 of party (1) is deprived of his interest in land, because of a
the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite and did not deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are not contested
dwell on the issue of whether or not the alleged deed of sale in when in fact they are; (2) applies for and obtains adjudication
favor of petitioner executed by private respondent has any and registration in the name of a co-owner of land which he
force and effect. Hence, this Court may not determine the knows has not been allotted to him in the partition; (3)
rights of any of the parties in this case to the said properties. intentionally conceals facts and connives with the land
Furthermore, Alex David appeared to be the registered owner inspector, so that the latter would include in the survey plan the
of TCT Nos. T-75237 and T-75238 when said petition was bed of a navigable stream; (4) deliberately makes a false
filed. statement that there are no other claims; (5) induces another
Besides, CA held a judgment can be annulled only on not to oppose an application; (6) deliberately fails to notify the
two (2) grounds: (a) that the judgment is void for want of party entitled to notice; or (7) misrepresents the identity of the
jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law; or (b) that it has lot to the true owner, causing the latter to withdraw his
been obtained by fraud and for fraud to serve as a basis for the opposition. Fraud, in these cases, goes into and affects the
annulment of a judgment, it must be extrinsic or collateral in jurisdiction of the court; thus, a decision rendered on the basis
character, otherwise, there would be no end to litigations and of such fraud becomes subject to annulment.
these grounds do not obtain in the instant case.
Then, Rexlon filed a petition for review of the decision SC ruled case of Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, as it
of the CA dismissing the petition for annulment of the decision ruled in the case at bar, that extrinsic fraud did not attend the
of the RTC. proceedings before the trial court for the reason that:
xxx It is well-settled that the use of forged instruments In this case, SC simply annulled the decision of the
or perjured testimonies during trial is not an extrinsic fraud, RTC, acting as a land registration court, to issue new owner’s
because such evidence does not preclude the participation of duplicate copies of TCT Nos. T-52537 and T-52538, for lack of
any party in the proceedings. While a perjured testimony may jurisdiction. The dispute between petitioner Rexlon and
prevent a fair and just determination of a case, it does not bar respondent David regarding ownership over the parcels of
the adverse party from rebutting or opposing the use of such land will have to be threshed out or determined in a more
evidence. Furthermore, it should be stressed that extrinsic appropriate proceeding. In a petition for the issuance of a
fraud pertains to an act committed outside of the trial. The new owner’s duplicate copy of a certificate of title in lieu of one
alleged fraud in this case was perpetrated during the trial. allegedly lost, the RTC, acting only as a land registration court,
However, in consonance with the Straight Times has no jurisdiction to pass upon the question of actual
case, respondent David’s act of misrepresentation, though ownership of the land covered by the lost owner’s duplicate
not constituting extrinsic fraud, is still an evidence of copy of the certificate of title. Possession of a lost owner’s
absence of jurisdiction. duplicate copy of a certificate of title is not necessarily
In this case, the authenticity and genuineness of the equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. The
owner’s duplicate of TCT Nos. T-52537 and T-52538 in the certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is merely
possession of petitioner Rexlon and the Absolute Deed of Sale an evidence of title over a particular property.
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.