Dear PAO,

In 2021, I bought a parcel of land from its registered owner. We executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, and had the document notarized before a notary public. The owner’s duplicate copy of the transfer certificate of title (TCT) was given to me, but I failed to cause the transfer of its registration. Last month, I found out that the registered owner was able to cause the reconstitution of the TCT over the same property because he declared the title as lost, notwithstanding the fact that he knew that it was in my possession. Now that the registered owner refuses to give me the reconstituted owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT, what can I do to protect my rights over the property?

Nic

Dear Nic,

Please be informed that under the Torrens System, the issuance of a certificate of title over a registered land is merely evidence of title over the same, and it does not operate to vest ownership therein. In the event of substantial loss or destruction of the owner’s duplicate copy of the title, the registered owner may avail of the remedy of reconstitution, by filing a proper petition before the court, pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Decree 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, which provide the basis and procedure for the reconstitution of an owner’s duplicate title, viz.:

“Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In case of loss or theft of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other person in interest and registered.

“Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this decree.”

However, for the reconstituted title to be valid, the court that issued the order directing its reconstitution must have jurisdiction over the matter. In the case Eastworld Motor Industries Corp. et al. v. Skunac Corp et al. (GR 163994, Dec. 16, 2005), the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice who later became Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, declared the importance of the court’s jurisdiction in so far as the validity of the reconstituted title is concerned, viz.:

“This Court has consistently held that when the owner’s duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction.

“Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of loss of the original certificate. The rationale for this principle is summarized in Strait Times v. Court of Appeals, from which we quote:

“‘The reconstitution of a title is simply the reissuance of a new duplicate certificate of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. It does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Possession of a lost certificate is not necessarily equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. The certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is merely an evidence of title over a particular property.’

“Applying the above ruling to the instant case, the certificate of title procured by Miguel Lim was clearly void. Respondent corporation’s presentation of the original owner’s duplicate certificate of title showed to the court the physical existence, and the corporation’s possession, of the certificate. The existence of the document is in fact unrebutted by petitioner.”

In your case, considering that the owner’s duplicate copy of the title over the property is in your possession by virtue of the perfected contract of sale between you and the registered owner, and that the said owner was well-aware of that fact, the reconstituted title in his name, which was issued due to the said seller’s misrepresentation, is considered void because it is violative of the law.

Consequently, the court that rendered the decision to cause the reconstitution of the alleged lost title had no jurisdiction over the case because, in reality, there is no ground to cause its reconstitution.

To address the matter, the proper remedy is to file a Petition for Annulment of Judgment, pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which provides:

“Section 2. Grounds for annulment. – The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.”

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected].