Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over the ownership and possession of a parcel of land located in Maunong, Calamba, Laguna, comprising 30,000 square meters. The petitioners, Faustina Camitan and Damaso Lopez, along with Alipio Camitan, filed a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-(12110) T-4342, alleging that the original duplicate copy was lost. They claimed to be the registered co-owners, had paid taxes on the property, and that no claims were annotated on the title. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted their petition, issuing a new duplicate copy and declaring the original void. Procedural History: Following the RTC's order, Fidelity Investment Corporation (Fidelity) filed a petition for annulment of judgment and cancellation of title with the Court of Appeals (CA). Fidelity asserted that it had purchased the property in 1967 and had been in possession of the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT since then. They claimed the RTC order was void because the duplicate copy was not lost and was in their possession. The CA initially gave due course to Fidelity's petition. During a preliminary conference, counsel for the petitioners admitted that the owner's duplicate copy presented by Fidelity appeared to be genuine. However, in their subsequent memorandum, the petitioners attempted to retract this admission, citing palpable mistake and negligence on the part of their counsel due to nervousness. The Petition: The present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to overturn the CA's decision and resolution, which favored Fidelity. The sole issue raised is whether the CA erred in not considering the judicial admission made by the petitioners' counsel during the preliminary conference as a palpable mistake. The petitioners argue that despite the admission, the CA should have considered other evidence, including alleged discrepancies in the title presented by Fidelity and the circumstances surrounding their original petition for a lost title. Fidelity, in its comment, reiterated its arguments that the judicial admission was binding and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to issue a new title when the original duplicate was not lost.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it did not consider that the judicial admission of the counsel of the petitioners during the hearing in C.A.-G.R. SP. No. 37291 was a palpable mistake. Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to issue a second owner's duplicate copy of the TCT when the original owner's duplicate copy was not lost but was in the possession of Fidelity Investment Corporation.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 28, 2003, and the Resolution dated May 12, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37291 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of palpable mistake in the judicial admission: The Court held that the transcript of the preliminary conference indubitably showed that petitioners' counsel made a judicial admission regarding the genuineness of the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT presented by Fidelity. A judicial admission is conclusive unless shown to be made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. The petitioners' claim of "honest mistake and negligence" due to their counsel's nervousness and excitement in appearing before the CA was found insufficient to invalidate the admission. The Court emphasized that every counsel has implied authority to act for his client, and generally, the client is bound by the counsel's mistakes or negligence, barring exceptional circumstances where the client is deprived of due process. The alleged discrepancies pointed out by petitioners were deemed more imagined than real and were not evident enough during the preliminary conference to warrant a retraction of the admission. On the jurisdiction of the RTC to issue a second owner's duplicate copy: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC was without jurisdiction to issue a second owner's duplicate copy of the TCT when the original owner's duplicate copy was not lost but was in the possession of Fidelity. The applicable law, Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529, requires that in case of loss or theft, the owner must send notice to the Register of Deeds. If the owner's duplicate is not lost but is in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void because the court never acquires jurisdiction. Consequently, such a decision may be attacked at any time. The Court reiterated that a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy is a land registration proceeding with limited jurisdiction, and the RTC, acting as such, cannot pass upon the question of actual ownership. Issues of ownership must be resolved in a separate suit with a full-blown hearing. The possession of the owner's duplicate copy does not necessarily equate to ownership, as the certificate of title is merely evidence of title, not a mode of acquiring ownership.
Main Doctrine
A judicial admission made by counsel during proceedings is binding on the client unless it is proven to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Claims of honest mistake or negligence due to nervousness are insufficient to invalidate a judicial admission. Furthermore, a court acting as a land registration court has limited jurisdiction and cannot pass upon the question of actual ownership of the land covered by a lost owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title; such issues must be threshed out in a separate suit.