FACTS:

The spouses Gervacio A. Ramirez and Martina Carbonel were the registered owners of a 1,266-square meter lot in Nueva Vizcaya covered by Original Certificate of Title No. T-4480 (OCT). Angel Abon, the father of respondent Joey T. Abon, allegedly acquired a portion of the lot through a Confirmation of Previous Sale (CPS) and obtained a separate title for the said portion. The Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez claim that the CPS was forged and filed a complaint for annulment of the CPS. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27 dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, respondent Abon filed a petition for reconstitution of the lost owner's duplicate of the OCT before the RTC, Branch 28. The RTC, Branch 28 granted the petition and ordered the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of the OCT. The Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA), Former 14th Division. The CA denied the petition, stating that the RTC, Branch 28 had jurisdiction over the reconstitution petition. The Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there are grounds under Rule 47 to annul the RTC's final and executory decision ordering the RD to issue a new owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 4480.

2. Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over LRC Case No. 6847.

3. Whether the petitioners, as successors-in-interest of the registered owners, should have been considered interested parties and notified of the Petition for Reconstitution proceedings.

4. Whether the registered owner should be notified in a petition for reconstitution filed by another person who is not the registered owner.

5. Whether registered owners in a certificate of title are interested parties in a petition for reconstitution of a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate of title.

6. Whether a person who is not a registered owner of the property can seek for the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate of title.

7. Whether the actual registered owner appearing on the certificate of title should be considered an interested party that must be notified in a petition for reconstitution case.

8. Whether the failure to notify the registered owner in a petition for reconstitution case affects the jurisdiction of the court.

RULING:

1. The Court finds the petition meritorious. Under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the remedy of annulment of judgment can be resorted to only in cases where the ordinary remedies are no longer available, and is based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the central issue is whether there are grounds under Rule 47 to annul the RTC's decision.

2. The petitioners argue that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over LRC Case No. 6847. The Court finds that Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529 is applicable to petitions for the issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title which are lost or stolen or destroyed. The requirements for the replacement of a lost owner's duplicate certificate of title include sending a notice of loss or destruction to the Register of Deeds, filing a petition in court, stating the facts under oath, and giving notice and hearing to all interested parties. In this case, it is not disputed that the respondent complied with these requirements and thus, the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction.

3. The court answered in the affirmative. The petitioners, as successors-in-interest of the registered owners, should have been considered interested parties and notified of the Petition for Reconstitution proceedings.

4. The court held that the registered owner should be notified in a petition for reconstitution filed by another person who is not the registered owner. The registered owner, being the presumed owner of the property and in possession of the owner's duplicate certificate of title, has a preferential right over the owner's duplicate. Notifying the registered owner ensures an orderly proceeding and safeguards the due process rights of the registered owner. It also prevents the commission of fraud.

5. Persons registered as owners in a certificate of title are interested parties in a petition for reconstitution of a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate of title because they are legally presumed to be the owners of the property. The registered owner has a preferential right to the possession of the owner's duplicate.

6. A person who is not a registered owner of the property can seek for the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate of title if the court is satisfied that the registered owner has completely divested his/her interest in the property, that the requesting party has sufficient interest in the subject property, and that the owner's duplicate certificate of title is indeed lost or destroyed.

7. The actual registered owner appearing on the certificate of title is always an interested party that must be notified in a petition for reconstitution case. The inscription of the name of the owner on the certificate of title is proof of the registration of their interest in the property.

8. The failure to notify the registered owner in a petition for reconstitution case affects the jurisdiction of the court. Without properly notifying the registered owner, the court fails to acquire jurisdiction over the case.

PRINCIPLES:

• The remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 can be resorted to only if the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. It is based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.

• Section 109 of PD 1529 applies to petitions for the issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title which are lost or stolen or destroyed. It requires sending notice to the Register of Deeds, filing a petition in court, and giving notice and hearing to all interested parties.

• The owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title is given to and possessed by the registered owner. When the owner's duplicate copy is lost or destroyed, it is the registered owner who usually files the petition for reconstitution. Other persons with an interest in the property must be notified to protect their interests.

• Section 109 of PD 1529 allows a person who is a transferee of the ownership over the property to file the petition for reconstitution even if they are not the registered owner. In this situation, both the registered owner and other persons with an interest in the property should be notified.

• The registered owner of a property, as stated in the certificate of title, is presumed to be the owner of the property. The registered owner is an interested party in a petition for reconstitution as they have a preferential right over the owner's duplicate certificate of title.

• The notification of the registered owner in a petition for reconstitution is to prevent fraud, allow the registered owner to contest the supposed interest of the person filing the petition, and safeguard the due process rights of the registered owner.

• Registration does not vest title; it is merely evidence of such title. A Torrens certificate is still the best evidence of ownership over registered land compared to a mere deed evidencing a contract of sale.

• The registered owner has a preferential right to the possession of the owner's duplicate certificate of title.

• The court should grant the petition for reconstitution in favor of the requesting party with sufficient interest in the subject property if the registered owner has divested his/her interest and the owner's duplicate certificate of title is lost or destroyed.

• Even if the certificate of title has not yet been transferred to the requesting party, the registered owner is still considered an interested party that should be notified in the petition for reconstitution.

• A person claiming ownership based on a private, unregistered document does not have an interest in the property as shown in the memorandum of encumbrances and thus cannot be considered an interested party in a petition for reconstitution.

• The registered owner appearing on the certificate of title is considered an interested party in a petition for reconstitution case.

• Failure to notify the registered owner in a petition for reconstitution case affects the jurisdiction of the court.