Heirs of Tuazon v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a dispute over Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4331. The petitioners, heirs of Susana de Guzman Tuazon, obtained an order from Branch 71 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, to issue a second owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 4331, alleging the original was lost. Subsequently, the private respondents filed a case with Branch 74 of the same court, seeking to quiet title and nullify and cancel the owner's duplicate copy issued by Branch 71, arguing that OCT No. 4331 had already been cancelled and replaced by subsequent transfer certificates of title. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, issued an order on August 17, 1994, granting the issuance of a second owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 4331. On June 19, 1995, the private respondents filed a case for quieting of title and cancellation of title before Branch 74. The petitioners opposed this, arguing Branch 74 lacked jurisdiction to annul an order of a co-equal court and that the order from Branch 71 had become final. Branch 74 denied the motion to dismiss and the motion to transfer the case. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the order of Branch 74. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. They contend that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the case filed by the private respondents in Branch 74 was for quieting of title and cancellation of title, and that their own petition in Branch 71 was for reconstitution. They further argue that Branch 74 lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case filed by the private respondents and that the private respondents had no cause of action against them. The core of their argument is that the order of Branch 71, which had become final, should not be subject to collateral attack or annulment by a co-equal court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petition filed by private respondents in Civil Case No. 95-3577 in Branch 74 was for quieting of title and cancellation of OCT No. 4331. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petition for issuance of owner's duplicate of OCT No. 4331 filed by petitioners in Branch 71 was for reconstitution of title. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Branch 74, has jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by private respondents in Civil Case No. 95-3577. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the private respondents have no cause of action against the petitioners.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 12, 1996, in CA-G.R. SP No. 39167, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the action filed by private respondents: The allegations in the complaint determine the nature of the action and the court's jurisdiction. The private respondents' petition in Civil Case No. 95-3577 clearly prayed for the cancellation of the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 4331 issued to petitioners, asserting that its issuance, procured by fraudulent representation, cast a cloud on their titles. This aligns with the definition of an action for quieting of title and nullification and cancellation of title, aimed at removing clouds or uncertainties on real property. The Court cited Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals to define quieting of title as a remedy for the removal of any cloud upon, or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property. The petition before Branch 74 sought the removal of a cloud and affirmation of ownership, making it a real action affecting title to real property, over which the RTC has jurisdiction under BP Blg. 129. On the nature of the petition filed by petitioners in LRC Case No. 93-1310: The petitioners argued that their petition in LRC Case No. 93-1310 was for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 4331 in lieu of the lost one, governed by Section 109 of PD 1529. The Court found this argument to be a non sequitur regarding the jurisdiction of Branch 74 in the present case. Regardless of whether the action in LRC Case No. 93-1310 was based on Section 109 of PD 1529 or RA 26, the nature of such an action is a restoration of a lost or destroyed instrument in its original form, not a determination of ownership. The purpose is merely to have the title reproduced, not to pass upon ownership. Ownership issues must be threshed out in a separate suit, which is precisely what the private respondents did by filing Civil Case No. 95-3577. On the jurisdiction of Branch 74: The Court affirmed that Branch 74 has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for quieting of title and cancellation of title. This is because the petition before Branch 74 was a real action affecting title to real property, and jurisdiction over such actions is vested in the Regional Trial Courts under Section 19(2) of BP Blg. 129. The argument that the petition was merely for annulment of a final order of a co-equal court was rejected because the nature of the action, as determined by the allegations, was for quieting of title. The Court reiterated the principle that it is the duty of the courts to grant the relief to which parties are entitled by the allegations in their pleadings and the facts proved, even if they misconstrued the legal effect. Therefore, Branch 74 did not commit reversible error in denying the motion to dismiss. On the cause of action of private respondents: The private respondents clearly had a cause of action. They alleged that the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 4331 to the petitioners, based on a supposedly lost title, was procured by fraudulent representation and cast a cloud on their own titles derived from subsequent transfers. Their prayer to cancel this new duplicate copy and to quiet their title was a valid legal recourse. The Court emphasized that the allegations in the petition, particularly those detailing the chain of transfers and the subsequent issuance of a new duplicate title, established a cloud on their ownership, thus giving them a valid cause of action to seek its removal and cancellation.
Main Doctrine
A petition for quieting of title and nullification and cancellation of title, which seeks to remove a cloud on the title and affirm ownership, is a real action within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, distinct from a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of a lost title.