REPUBLIC vs. SUSI

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GERTRUDES V. SUSI 

January 16, 2017

G.R. No. 213209

FACTS:

On September 27, 2005 Susi filed before the RTC a verified Petition 6 for reconstitution of TCT No. 118999 purportedly registered in her name, Covering Lot 257 of plan Psu-32606 located m Barrio (now Barangay) Talanay, Quezon City (QC), with an area of 240,269 square meters (subject land). She claimed that the original copy of TCT No. 118999 was destroyed by the fire that gutted the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City (RD-QC) on June 11, 1988; hence, the petition based on the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 118999,9 docketed as LRC Case No. Q-20493(05).

On January 16, 2006, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) filed with the RTC a Manifestation dated December 5, 2005 stating that respondent filed similar petitions for reconstitution covering the subject land before Branches 88 and 220 of the same RTC, for which it had previously issued Reports dated March 1, 1995 and December 12, 1995, respectively.

On February 2, 2006, Susi presented proof of the jurisdictional requirements without any opposition. After Susi was allowed to formally offer her evidence, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance in the case, and manifested that it had deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor of QC to appear on its behalf, subject to its supervision and control.

In a Decision23 dated January 12, 2011 (January 12, 2011 Decision), the RTC granted Susi’s petition, and directed the RD-QC to reconstitute the lost/destroyed original copy of TCT No. 118999. The RTC ruled that the presentation of the owner’s copy of TCT No. 11899925 and the Certification26 from the RD-QC that the original of TCT No.

ISSUE:

1. WHETHER OR NOT the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
2. WHETHER OR NOT the CA erred in the decision rendered.

HELD:

1. NO. The RTC has no jurisdiction over the case and all proceedings held thereon are null and void. That being said, the Court finds it unnecessary to delve on the other matters raised in the petition.

At the outset, it is well to emphasize that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents, absent any showing that it had dealt capriciously or dishonorably with its citizens. Thus, whether or not the OSG’s motion to vacate was the proper remedy under the Rules of Court (Rules) does not bar the Republic from assailing the propriety of the reconstitution ordered by the RTC which it claimed to have acted without jurisdiction in hearing and, thereafter, resolving the case. Moreover, it bears to emphasize that even assuming that no opposition was filed by the Republic or a private party, the person seeking reconstitution is not relieved of his burden of proving not only the loss or destruction of the title sought to be reconstituted, but that also at that time, she was the registered owner thereof.

In view of the failure to comply with the requirements of Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26, particularly, on the service of notices of hearing on the registered owners and/or actual possessors of the land subject of the reconstitution case, the RTC, did not acquire jurisdiction over the case, and all proceedings held thereon are null and void. That being said, the Court finds it unnecessary to delve on the other matters raised in the petition.

2. YES. As aforementioned, the court finds it unnecessary to look into the other matters as raised in the petition for, first and foremost, the decision rendered by the RTC is null and void.

The Decision dated February 13, 2014 and the Resolution dated June 25, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 127144, upholding the Order dated July 5, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77 in LRC Case No. Q-20493(05) which denied the Motion to Vacate Judgment filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines, and sustained the grant of the petition for reconstitution filed by respondent Gertrudes V. Susi, are hereby SET ASIDE. A new judgment is entered DISMISSING the petition for reconstitution for lack of jurisdiction.