SEBASTIAN v. SPS CRUZ

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

G.R. No. 220940

March 20, 2017

Facts:

Nelson C. Cruz, married to Cristina P. Cruz, is the registered owner of a 40,835-square meter parcel of land located in Brgy. Bogtong-Bolo, Mangatarem. Sometime in November 2009, Nelson, through his father and attomey-infact and father, Lamberto P. Cruz, then sold the subject lot in favor of Sebastian with a Deed of Absolute Sale. Upon Sebastian's payment of the purchase price, Lamberto then surrendered to her the possession of the subject land. Sebastian then paid the taxes to transfer the title to her name. However, upon her presentment of the aforesaid documents to the Register of Deeds of the Province of Pangasinan, the latter directed her to secure a Special Power of Attorney executed by Spouses Cruz authorizing Lamberto to sell the subject land to her. Accordingly, Sebastian requested the execution of such document to Lamberto, who promised to do so, but failed to comply.

According to Sebastian, it was only on July 14, 2014 upon her inquiry with Register of Deeds about the status of the aforesaid title when she discovered that: (a) Nelson executed an Affidavit of Loss dated September 23, 2013 attesting to the loss of owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. P- 41566, which he registered with the Register of Deeds; (b) the Spouses Cruz filed before the R TC a petition for the issuance of a second owner's copy of subject land; and (c) on March 27, 2014, the RTC promulgated a Decision granting Spouses Cruz's petition and, consequently, ordered the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of title in their names. In view of the foregoing incidents, Sebastian filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but was dismissed.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction over the said case.

Held:

No, the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction over the case. According to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 26 AN ACT PROVIDING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS CERTIFICATES OF TITLE LOST OR DESTROYED: If the court, after hearing, finds that the documents presented, as supported by parole evidence or otherwise, are sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, and that petitioner is the registered owner of the property or has an interest therein, that the said certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed, and that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title, an order of reconstitution shall be issued. The clerk of court shall forward to the register of deeds a certified copy of said order and all the documents which, pursuant to said order, are to be used as the basis of the reconstitution. If the court finds that there is no sufficient evidence or basis to justify the reconstitution, the petition shall be dismissed, but such dismissal shall not preclude the right of the party or parties entitled thereto to file an application for confirmation of his or their title under the provisions of the Land Registration Act. In the present case, such document was not actually lost but was in the possession of the petitioner. When the owner's duplicate certificate of title was not actually lost or destroyed, but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void because the court that rendered the order of reconstitution had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Hence, the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over the case.