Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 13, 1967, spouses Mateo and Lorenza Camitan sold a parcel of land to Fidelity Investment Corporation (respondent). The owner's duplicate certificate of title was delivered to the respondent, who has since paid the real estate taxes and maintained possession of the property. The spouses Camitan passed away without the respondent's knowledge. Procedural History: On December 29, 1993, the heirs of the spouses Camitan (petitioners) filed a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title, alleging the original was lost. The trial court, after issuing an order of general default and an ex parte presentation of evidence, granted the petition on March 8, 1995, directing the Register of Deeds to issue a new title and declare the original void. Upon learning of this in March 1995, the respondent filed a notice of adverse claim. Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition for annulment of judgment and cancellation of title with the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The respondent argued that the trial court's order was void due to lack of jurisdiction, as the owner's duplicate certificate of title was not lost but was in the respondent's possession since 1967. The respondent contended that the petitioners had no standing, had committed perjury, and had failed to notify the respondent of the proceedings. The Court of Appeals granted the annulment, finding the owner's copy was not lost and that the petitioners lacked standing. The petitioners now claim they were unaware of the sale and dispute the respondent's possession of the title, arguing the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the trial court's order without sufficient proof of the respondent's possession. They also raise issues of estoppel, laches, and potential ill-gotten wealth.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it ordered the annulment of the 08 March 1995 Order of the trial court which directed the Register of Deeds to issue a second Owner’s Copy of the title. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for the issuance of a new Owner's Copy despite the Owner's Copy not being lost, and the related arguments regarding proof of possession and timeliness of raising the issue of lack of material evidence, and the petitioners' active participation in the proceedings.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED and the challenged resolution of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' annulment of the trial court's order: The Court of Appeals did not err in ordering the annulment of the trial court's Order dated March 8, 1995. Annulment of judgment is an equitable remedy allowed in exceptional cases, grounded on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the annulment was premised on the trial court's lack of jurisdiction, stemming from the finding that the duplicate certificate of title was not lost but remained in the possession of the respondent, who purchased the property in 1967. The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb this finding of the appellate court. On the issue of the trial court's jurisdiction over the petition for a new Owner's Copy, and related arguments: The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for the issuance of a new Owner's Copy. Presidential Decree No. 1529 requires that before a duplicate certificate of title can be replaced, the petitioner must establish that the duplicate certificate was lost or destroyed. This Court has consistently held that a trial court does not acquire jurisdiction if the original duplicate is in fact not lost but is in the possession of an alleged buyer. The fact of loss is jurisdictional. In this case, the Court of Appeals found that the Owner's Copy was in the possession of the respondent since 1967, thus rendering the trial court's order void for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners' argument that respondent failed to attach the Owner's Copy or a photocopy to its petition for annulment, thus lacking proof of possession, is unavailing because petitioners effectively admitted respondent's allegations regarding possession. The argument that the Court of Appeals lacked material evidence should have been raised before the Court of Appeals. Having actively participated in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals, petitioners can no longer question its authority. Therefore, the Court of Appeals' satisfaction that the Owner's Copy was not lost, but was in the possession of another person, is a finding of fact that the Supreme Court will not disturb.
Main Doctrine
A trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title if the original is in fact not lost but is in the possession of an alleged buyer, as the fact of loss is jurisdictional. Furthermore, a "specific denial" that does not set forth the substance of the matters relied upon to support the denial, especially when the matters are plainly within the defendant's knowledge, is ineffective and amounts to an admission.