48.rexlon realty v. ca

Upload: gedan-obinay

Post on 01-Jun-2018

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    1/12

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 128412. March 15, 2002]

    REXLON REALTY GROUP, INC., petitioner , vs. T E ONORA!LECOURT O" APPEAL#, ON. ARTURO T. $E GUIA, RTC %U$GE&Ca'()* C()+ , !RANC 1-, ALEX L. $A I$, T E REGI#TER O"$EE$# "OR T E PRO INCE O" CA ITE AN$ PARAMOUNT$E ELOPMENT CORPORATION O" T EP ILIPPINE#, respondents .

    $ E C I # I O N$E LEON, %R., J ./

    Before us is a petition for review of the Decision [1] dated November 1 ! 1 " and#eso$ution [%] dated &ebruar' (! 1 ( of the Court of )ppea$s dismissin* the petition for annu$ment of the Decision [+] dated ,arch 1! 1 - of the #e*iona$ .ria$ Court /#.C0 of Cavite!Branch 1"! which *ranted the petition of respondent )$e 23 David in 23#3C3 #ec3 No3 44-+ for the issuance of new owner5s dup$icate copies of .ransfer Certificates of .it$e Nos3 .6(%7+( and.6(%7+4 of the #e*istr' of Deeds of the 8rovince of Cavite3

    .he facts are as fo$$ows9

    #espondent )$e 23 David is the re*istered owner of two /%0 parce$s of $and $ocated in,o$ino! Bacoor! Cavite covered b' .ransfer Certificates of .it$e /.C.0 Nos3 .6(%7+( and .6(%7+4! with areas of (!4:1 and -%!%7+ s;uare meters! respective$'3 On )u*ust 1(! 1 4 !

    petitioner #e $on #ea$t' 3

    On &ebruar' 14! 1 -! David fi$ed with the #e*iona$ .ria$ Court of Cavite Cit'! Branch 1"!a petition for the issuance of owner5s dup$icate copies of .C. Nos3 .6(%7+( and .6(%7+4 torep$ace the owner5s dup$icate copies which were a$$e*ed$' $ost3 David a$$e*ed that he entrustedhis owner5s dup$icate copies of the said .C.s to a friend and member of his staff for the purpose

    of showin* them to a prospective deve$oper who was interested in deve$opin* the sub?ect parce$sof $and for commercia$ and@or industria$ useA that the said owner5s dup$icate copies of said tit$eswere misp$aced and cou$d not be found despite di$i*ent efforts to $ocate the sameA and that saidowner5s dup$icate copies have not been de$ivered to an' person or entit' to secure pa'ment or

    performance of an' ob$i*ation3

    Conse;uent$'! a notice of hearin* was issued b' the #.C orderin* its branch Deput' Sheriff to post copies of the same at the 8rovincia$ Capito$ Bui$din*! the pub$ic mar et! and theBaran*a' a$$ of the $oca$it' where the properties are $ocated3 .he said Deput' Sheriff then

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn1

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    2/12

    issued his Certificate of 8ostin* statin* that he has du$' posted the Notice of earin* at the saidthree /+0 pub$ic p$aces3 .he initia$ hearin* proceeded e 6parte inasmuch as nobod' appeared tooppose the same3 On ,arch 1! 1 -! the #.C *ranted the said petition in a decision! thedispositive portion of which reads9

    E#E&O#E! the instant petition is hereb' *ranted and the #e*ister of Deeds for the8rovince of Cavite is accordin*$' directed! upon pa'ment of the correspondin* fees!to issue another dup$icate copies of .C. Nos3 .6(%7+( and .6(%7+4 to petitioner )$e23 David! in $ieu of the two /%0 $ost tit$es! which are hereb' dec$ared nu$$ and void andof no further force and effect3 .he new dup$icate tit$es sha$$ contain a$$ subsistin*encumbrances! if an'3 [-]

    8etitioner #e $on then fi$ed with the Court of )ppea$s a petition for annu$ment of the saidDecision of the tria$ court on the *round that respondent David a$$e*ed$' emp$o'ed fraud anddeception in securin* the rep$acement owner5s dup$icate copies of the sub?ect .C.sA that therewas absence of due processA and! that the decision of the tria$ court was tainted with *rave abuseof discretion amountin* to $ac of ?urisdiction3 .he petition was $ater amended! with $eave of court! to inc$ude as respondent 8aramount Deve$opment Corporation of the 8hi$ippines/8aramount! for brevit'0 upon discoverin* that respondent David had e ecuted on September %:!1 -! a deed of sa$e of the sub?ect parce$s of $and in favor of 8aramount3 )s a resu$t of that sa$e!new certificates of tit$e desi*nated as .C. Nos3 .67%7""- and .67%7""7 were issued in the nameof respondent 8aramount in $ieu of .C. Nos3 .6(%7+( and .6(%7+4 in the name of )$e 23David3

    On November 1 ! 1 "! pub$ic respondent Court of )ppea$s rendered a decision dismissin*the petition of petitioner #e $on! the dispositive portion of which reads9

    E#E&O#E! in view of the fore*oin*! the petition is hereb' DIS,ISSED for $acof merit3

    SO O#DE#ED3 [7]

    In ru$in* in favor of respondents David and 8aramount! the appe$$ate court he$d asinsi*nificant the contention of petitioner #e $on that David had mis$ed the tria$ court in a$$e*in*that his owner5s dup$icate copies of the said .C. Nos3 .6(%7+( and .6(%7+4 were$ost3 8etitioner c$aims that it had ac;uired the tit$es of ownership over the said properties fromrespondent David pursuant to a perfected contract of sa$e between them3 #efutin* this a$$e*ation!the appe$$ate court he$d that9

    Said contention is not impressed with merit3 It must be remembered that the decisionsou*ht to be annu$$ed concerns the issuance of owner5s dup$icate copies of .C. Nos3.6(7%+( and .6(7%+4 of the #e*ister of Deeds of the 8rovince of Cavite3 It did not inan' manner dwe$$ on the issue of whether or not the a$$e*ed deed of sa$e in favor of

    petitioner e ecuted b' private respondent has an' force and effect3 ence! this Courtma' not determine the ri*hts of an' of the parties in this case to the said

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn5

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    3/12

    properties3 )n' ad?udication of ri*hts over the properties in ;uestion ma' on$' bedone b' the proper court where the appropriate action ma' be fi$ed but definite$'! notin the present case3

    &urthermore! private respondent )$e David appeared to be the re*istered owner of.C. Nos3 .6(7%+( and .6(7%+4 when said petition was fi$ed3 Conse;uent$'! pursuantto Section 1: of 8residentia$ Decree No3 17% ! he has the persona$it' to fi$e thesame3["]

    In re*ard to petitioner5s ar*ument that the ?urisdictiona$ re;uirements set forth in Section 1+of #epub$ic )ct No3 %" have not been comp$ied with! the appe$$ate court ru$ed that9

    )s private respondent points out! petitioner fai$ed miserab$' to discern that #epub$ic)ct No3 %" has no app$ication to the proceedin*s commenced be$ow3 Said $aw app$iesto reconstitution of $ost or destro'ed transfer certificates of tit$e! which is not what

    private respondent sou*ht be$ow3 #econstitution presupposes the $oss or destructionof the ori*ina$ copies of the certificate of tit$e on fi$e with the #e*ister of Deeds /Cf3Section 11:! 8residentia$ Decree No3 17% 03 In such a case! the procedure prescribedunder #epub$ic )ct No3 %" wou$d have to be observed3 On the other hand! Davidmere$' sou*ht the issuance of another owner5s dup$icate cop' of his certificates oftit$e under the provisions of Section 1: of 8residentia$ Decree No3 17% ! since hec$aimed that on$' his dup$icate cop' was $ost and cou$d not be found! and not theori*ina$ with #e*ister of Deeds3 Said provision prescribes a different set of procedure

    3

    .he aforesaid provision entai$s a minimum re;uirement of notice and hearin*3 In the present case! it appears on record that a notice of hearin* /p3 1:1! #o$$o0 has beenissued b' the court3 .he Certificate of 8ostin* /p3 1:%! #o$$o0 shows that the Deput'Sheriff posted the said notice of hearin* in three pub$ic p$aces where the properties are$ocated3 It appearin* that the same were observed! this Court finds that the

    proceedin*s be$ow were va$id and $e*a$3 No fraudu$ent misrepresentation can beimputed a*ainst private respondent in see in* the petition for the issuance of anowner5s dup$icate of the sub?ect certificate of tit$e3

    Besides! a ?ud*ment can be annu$$ed on$' on two /%0 *rounds9 /a0 that the ?ud*ment isvoid for want of ?urisdiction or for $ac of due process of $awA or /b0 that it has beenobtained b' fraud / Santos v3 Court of )ppea$s! %%- SC#) "(+03 &or fraud to serve asa basis for the annu$ment of a ?ud*ment! it must be e trinsic or co$$atera$ in character!otherwise! there wou$d be no end to $iti*ations /Santos v3 Court of )ppea$s! %%- SC#)"(+03 nfortunate$'! these *rounds do not obtain in the instant case3 [(]

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn7

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    4/12

    ence! this petition based on the fo$$owin* assi*nment of errors9

    I

    #ES8ONDEN. CO #. ,)NI&ES.2F E##ED IN

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    5/12

    e find that the issuance of new owner5s dup$icate certificates of tit$e b' the tria$ court infavor of respondent David is indeed tainted with e trinsic fraud3 #espondent David in his

    petition before the #.C a$$e*ed that9

    +3 .hat the Owner5s Dup$icate of the aforementioned .ransfer Certificate of .it$e No3.6(7%+( and No3 .6(7%+4 were $ost when petitioner entrusted said Owner5s Dup$icateof said tit$es to a trusted friend and member of his staff for the purpose of showin*said certificates of tit$e to a prospective deve$oper who was interested in deve$opin*said parce$s of $and for commercia$ and@or industria$ use3 owever! whi$e theabovementioned Owner5s Dup$icate of said tit$es were in the custod' and possessionof the prospective deve$oper! the same were misp$aced and cou$d not be found despitedi$i*ent efforts to $ocate said tit$esA

    -3 .hat said Owner5s Dup$icate of .ransfer Certificate of .it$e No3 .6(7%+( and No3.6(7%+4 have not been de$ivered to an' person or entit' to secure the pa'ment or

    performance of an' ob$i*ation whatsoever or used for an' i$$e*a$ or fraudu$enttransaction3 [ ]

    owever! the document denominated as =)bso$ute Deed of Sa$e> where the si*nature of respondent David as se$$er has not been controverted! states that the $atter has fu$$' received

    pa'ment for the said sa$e and has bound himse$f to cede and de$iver to petitioner #e $on! asvendee! his ri*hts! interest! participation and title over the said parce$s of $and covered b' .C.

    Nos3 .6(7%+( and .6(7%+43 &or emphasis! the said pertinent provision of the said )bso$ute Deedof Sa$e is ;uoted hereunder! to wit9

    NO ! . E#E&O#E! for and in consideration of the fore*oin* premises and themutua$ covenants of the parties herein contained and of the sum of 8ESOS9 &IVE

    ND#ED . O S)ND ON2F /87::!:::3::0! 8hi$ippine currenc'! receipt ofwhich is hereb' confessed and ac now$ed*ed to the tota$ and fu$$ satisfaction of theVENDO#! the VENDO# hereb' unconditiona$$' and abso$ute$' SE22S!.#)NS&E#S! CONVEFS! CEDES and DE2IVE#S unto the VENDEE! itssuccessors and assi*ns a$$ his ri*hts! interest! participation and tit$e! free from a$$c$aims! $iens and encumbrance whatsoever3 [1:]

    .he c$aim of respondents David and 8aramount that the sa$e is void for $ac of considerationafter the petitioner a$$e*ed$' fai$ed to pa' the down pa'ment cannot prevai$ over theuncontroverted contractua$ provision in the notariHed Deed of )bso$ute Sa$e re*ardin* the fu$$

    pa'ment of the consideration of &ive undred .housand /87::!:::3::0 8esos made b'8aramount! as vendee! to respondent David! as vendor! who e p$icit$' ac now$ed*ed receiptthereof on the face of that document3 #espondent David was therefore we$$ aware that there was

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn10

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    6/12

    no truth in his a$$e*ation in his petition for issuance of new owner5s dup$icate copies of saidcertificates of tit$e on the fa$se and fraudu$ent *round that his owner5s dup$icate copies of .C.

    Nos3 .67%7+( and .67%7+4 were $ost and that the' were not de$ivered to an' person to secure the performance of an' ob$i*ation3

    .he Court is presented in the case at bar with the issue of whether such misrepresentation or fraud of respondent David can be characteriHed as e trinsic fraud so as to merit the annu$ment of the tria$ court5s decision *rantin* respondent David5s petition for the issuance of new owner5sdup$icate certificates of tit$e of .C. Nos3 .67%7+( and .67%7+43

    E trinsic fraud contemp$ates a situation where a $iti*ant commits acts outside of the tria$ of the case! =the effect of which prevents a part' from havin* a tria$! a rea$ contest! or from

    presentin* a$$ of his case to the court! or where it operates upon matters pertainin*! not to the ?ud*ment itse$f! but to the manner in which it was procured so that there is not a fair submissionof the controvers'3> [11] .he overridin* consideration is that the fraudu$ent scheme of the

    prevai$in* $iti*ant prevented a part' from havin* his da' in court3 ence! the Court has he$d thate trinsic fraud is present in cases where a part' /10 is deprived of his interest in $and! because of

    a de$iberate misrepresentation that the $ots are not contested when in fact the' areA /%0 app$ies for and obtains ad?udication and re*istration in the name of a co6owner of $and which he nows hasnot been a$$otted to him in the partitionA /+0 intentiona$$' concea$s facts and connives with the$and inspector! so that the $atter wou$d inc$ude in the surve' p$an the bed of a navi*ab$e streamA/-0 de$iberate$' ma es a fa$se statement that there are no other c$aimsA /70 induces another not tooppose an app$icationA /"0 de$iberate$' fai$s to notif' the part' entit$ed to noticeA or /(0misrepresents the identit' of the $ot to the true owner! causin* the $atter to withdraw hisopposition3 &raud! in these cases! *oes into and affects the ?urisdiction of the courtA thus! adecision rendered on the basis of such fraud becomes sub?ect to annu$ment3 [1%]

    In the case of Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, [1+] where this Court was faced with thesame facts and issue! therein respondent 8e a$osa fi$ed a petition for the issuance of a newowner5s dup$icate certificate of tit$e3 e a$$e*ed therein that his cop' was $ost and was not

    p$ed*ed or otherwise de$ivered to an' person or entit' to *uarantee an' ob$i*ation or for an' purpose3 hen the tria$ court issued a new owner5s dup$icate tit$e! therein petitioner Strait.imes! Inc3 fi$ed a petition to annu$ ?ud*ment based on e trinsic fraud and $ac of

    ?urisdiction3 Strai*ht .imes! Inc3 c$aimed that 8e a$osa misrepresented before the tria$ court thatthe said owner5s dup$icate cop' of the tit$e was $ost when in fact it was in the possession of theformer pursuant to a contract of sa$e between 8e a$osa and a certain Conrado Ca$$era3 Ca$$era$ater so$d the $ot represented b' the a$$e*ed $ost tit$e to therein petitioner Strai*ht .imes! Inc3

    e ru$ed therein! as we now ru$e in the case at bar! that e trinsic fraud did not attend the proceedin*s before the tria$ court for the reason that9

    It is we$$6sett$ed that the use of for*ed instruments or per?ured testimonies durin*tria$ is not an e trinsic fraud! because such evidence does not prec$ude the

    participation of an' part' in the proceedin*s3 hi$e a per?ured testimon' ma' preventa fair and ?ust determination of a case! it does not bar the adverse part' from rebuttin*or opposin* the use of such evidence3 &urthermore! it shou$d be stressed that e trinsic

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn13

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    7/12

    fraud pertains to an act committed outside of the tria$3 .he a$$e*ed fraud in this casewas perpetrated during the tria$3

    Besides! the fai$ure of petitioner to present its case was caused b' its own inaction3 Itwas not imp$eaded as a part' to the case before the tria$ court because it fai$ed toeffect the time$' re*istration of its Deed of Sa$e3 ad it done so! it wou$d have beenab$e to oppose the issuance of the new dup$icate tit$e! rebut Espinosa5s testimon'! and

    prove that it a$read' bou*ht the $and in issue3 [1-]

    owever! in consonance with the Straight Times case! respondent David5s act of misrepresentation! thou*h not constitutin* e trinsic fraud! is sti$$ an evidence of absence of

    ?urisdiction3 In the Straight Times case and in Demetriou v. Court of Appeals, [17] a$so on factsana$o*ous to those invo$ved in this case! we he$d that if an owner5s dup$icate cop' of a certificateof tit$e has not been $ost but is in fact in the possession of another person! the reconstituted tit$e isvoid and the court renderin* the decision has not ac;uired ?urisdiction3 Conse;uent$'! thedecision ma' be attac ed an' time3 [1"] In the case at bar! the authenticit' and *enuineness of theowner5s dup$icate of .C. Nos3 .67%7+( and .67%7+4 in the possession of petitioner #e $on andthe )bso$ute Deed of Sa$e in its favor have not been disputed3 )s there is no proof to supportactua$ $oss of the said owner5s dup$icate copies of said certificates of tit$e! the tria$ court did notac;uire ?urisdiction and the new tit$es issued in rep$acement thereof are void3

    On whether this Court can ru$e on the va$idit' or nu$$it' of the tit$es issued in the name of respondent 8aramount in the $i*ht of the facts of this case! we ru$e in the affirmative3

    &irst$'! it must be remembered that! in the amended petition of #e $on for annu$ment of ?ud*ment! respondent 8aramount was imp$eaded for the reason that the pra'er therein sou*ht thenu$$ification of the new tit$es issued in the name of respondent 8aramount3 Inasmuch as a

    petition for annu$ment of ?ud*ment is c$assified as an ori*ina$ action that can be fi$ed before theCourt of )ppea$s! [1(] the said court can admit! b' wa' of an amendment to the petition! newcauses of action intimate$' re$ated to the reso$ution of the ori*ina$ petition3 ence! respondent8aramount became a necessar' part' in the petitioner5s ori*ina$ cause of action see in* adec$aration of the e istence and va$idit' of the owner5s dup$icate cop' of the sub?ect certificateof tit$e in the possession of the $atter! and an indispensab$e part' in the action for the dec$arationof nu$$it' of the tit$es in the name of respondent 8aramount3 Indeed! there can be no comp$etere$ief that can be accorded as to those a$read' parties! or for a comp$ete determination or sett$ement of the c$aim sub?ect of the action! [14] if we do not touch upon the necessar'conse;uence of the nu$$it' of the new dup$icate cop' of the sub?ect certificate of tit$e3 .he #u$esof Court compe$s the inc$usion of necessar' parties when ?urisdiction over the person of the saidnecessar' part' can be obtained3 Non6inc$usion of a necessar' part' when there is anopportunit' to inc$ude him wou$d mean waiver of the c$aim a*ainst such part'3 [1 ]

    Second$'! respondent 8aramount has du$' consented to put in issue the va$idit' of its tit$es b' invo in* in this appea$ the reasons espoused b' the appe$$ate court and respondent David for the dismissa$ of the petition to annu$ the decision of the tria$ court3 In its ,emorandum andrespondent David5s comment that it adopted! respondent 8aramount has not made an'

    ?urisdictiona$ ob?ection as re*ards its inc$usion in the appea$ to the petition for annu$ment of ?ud*ment! and even participated in the discussion of the merits of the case3 Based on the

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/128412.htm#_edn19

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    8/12

    princip$e of estoppe$! respondent 8aramount is barred from raisin* an' ob?ection over the power of this Court to nu$$if' its tit$es3

    .hird$'! in order for a ?ust! speed' and ine pensive disposition of the case! we must decideon the effect of void dup$icate copies of a certificate of tit$e that served as a basis for the sa$e of the propert' it represents and the eventua$ issuance of tit$es in the name of respondent8aramount3 .o re;uire another proceedin* on$' for the purpose of annu$$in* the said new tit$eswhen the same cou$d be decided in this ver' petition wou$d promote ?udicia$ bureaucrac'! a

    practice abhorred b' our $e*a$ s'stem3 )s we have ru$ed in Gayos v. Gayos [%:]! it is a cherishedru$e of procedure that a court shou$d a$wa's strive to sett$e the entire controvers' in a sin*$e

    proceedin* $eavin* no root or branch to bear the seeds of future $iti*ation3

    In this case at bar! we simp$' annu$$ed the decision of the #.C! actin* as a $and re*istrationcourt in 23#3C3 #ecord No3 44-+! to issue new owner5s dup$icate copies of .C. Nos3 .67%7+(and .67%7+4! for $ac of ?urisdiction3 .he dispute between petitioner #e $on and respondentDavid re*ardin* ownership over the parce$s of $and wi$$ have to be threshed out or determined ina more appropriate proceedin*3 In a petition for the issuance of a new owner5s dup$icate cop' of

    a certificate of tit$e in $ieu of one a$$e*ed$' $ost! the #.C! actin* on$' as a $and re*istration court!has no ?urisdiction to pass upon the ;uestion of actua$ ownership of the $and covered b' the $ostowner5s dup$icate cop' of the certificate of tit$e3 8ossession of a $ost owner5s dup$icate cop' of acertificate of tit$e is not necessari$' e;uiva$ent to ownership of the $and covered b' it3 .hecertificate of tit$e! b' itse$f! does not vest ownershipA it is mere$' an evidence of tit$e over a

    particu$ar propert'3 [%1]

    ERE"ORE ! the petition for review is hereb'

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    9/12

    I 1::4, $a'( ( * 7()h )h* RTC o Ca'()* C()+ a 3*)()(o or )h* ( =a c* o o7 *r@

    =3 (ca)* co3(* o h( 2 TCT )o r*3 ac* )h* o7 *r@ =3 (ca)* co3(* 7h(ch 7*r* a *6* +

    o ). $a'( a *6* )ha) )h* a( o7 *r@ =3 (ca)* co3(* o a( )() * 7*r*

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    10/12

    2. ON )h* RTC ha D=r( (c)(o o'*r )h( ca *

    . ON )h( Co=r) ca r= * o )h* 'a ( ()+ or = ()+ o )h* )() * ( =* ( )h* a

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    11/12

    Co=r) o A33*a , 7* h* )ha) ( a o7 *r@ =3 (ca)* co3+ o a c*r)( (ca)* o )() * ha o)

    9** o ) 9=) ( ( ac) ( )h* 3o * (o o a o)h*r 3*r o , )h* r*co )()=)* )() * ( 'o( a

    )h* co=r) r* *r( 6 )h* *c( (o ha o) acB=(r* D=r( (c)(o . Co *B=* ) +, )h* *c( (o

  • 8/9/2019 48.Rexlon Realty v. CA

    12/12

    o )h* 3r*'a( ( 6 ()(6a ) 3r*'* )* a 3ar)+ ro< ha'( 6 h( a+ ( co=r). * c*, )h* Co=r)

    ha h* )ha) *;)r( (c ra= ( 3r* * ) ( ca * 7h*r* a 3ar)+/

    &1 ( *3r('* o h( ( )*r* ) ( a , 9*ca= * o a * (9*ra)*