Alcazar v. Arante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Crisanto Alcazar (Alcazar) filed a petition for reconstitution of a lost owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 169526, claiming he was the sole heir of his deceased parents who owned the property. He alleged that the owner's duplicate copy was lost in April 2003 after he entrusted it to individuals who offered to help him transfer the title to his name. He reported the loss to the Register of Deeds of Pasig via an Affidavit of Loss. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 268, granted Alcazar's petition ex parte, declaring the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 169526 null and void and directing the issuance of a new duplicate copy. The decision became final and executory. Subsequently, Evelyn Arante filed a Petition for Annulment of Final Decision with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 169526 was not lost but was delivered to her by Alcazar as security for a ₱350,000.00 loan. Arante claimed that Alcazar later caused an affidavit of loss to be annotated and obtained a new duplicate title after she failed to immediately register her mortgage. The CA annulled and set aside the RTC decision, declared the new duplicate title void, and reinstated the original duplicate title in Arante's custody. The CA also awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees to Arante. The Petition: The Spouses Alcazar filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision, particularly its findings on the non-loss of the title, its ruling on the RTC's jurisdiction, and the award of damages.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in giving credence to the version of the respondent and ruling that TCT No. 169526 was never lost or misplaced by the petitioners. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that Section 109 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 is not applicable to the petitioners. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 268 had no jurisdiction to order the issuance of TCT No. PT-125372 in lieu of the allegedly lost certificate of title. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees to the respondent.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals which annulled and set aside the Regional Trial Court's decision, declared the new owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 169526 and its replacement void, reinstated the original duplicate certificate of TCT No. 169526 in the custody of the respondent, and affirmed the award of damages and attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the factual findings regarding the loss of the title: The Court reiterated that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised, and it is not the Court's function to analyze or weigh evidence already considered by lower courts. The findings of fact of the CA are generally conclusive, subject to specific exceptions, none of which were present in this case. The petitioners failed to present proof that they did not mortgage the property or that the deed was forged, relying only on bare allegations and denials. The Court noted that the real estate mortgage contract was notarized, carrying a presumption of regularity that was not overcome by clear and convincing evidence from the petitioners. The Court found that the respondent successfully proved the existence and possession of the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT, contradicting the claim of loss. On the applicability of Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529: The Court clarified that Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529, which deals with the reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title, requires the actual loss or destruction of the owner's duplicate copy. The plain and ordinary meaning of "lost" does not apply when the duplicate title is in the possession of another person, even if that possession was obtained through alleged fraud. The petitioners admitted entrusting the TCT to the respondent, and the respondent proved she had possession of the genuine owner's duplicate copy. Therefore, the TCT was not "lost" in the legal sense contemplated by the statute. On the jurisdiction of the RTC: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to order the reconstitution of the title. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. Reconstitution can only be validly made in cases of actual loss or destruction of the original certificate. When the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost but is in the possession of another person, the reconstituted certificate is void because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. The petitioners' remedy for recovering the title in the respondent's possession should have been a different action, not a petition for reconstitution. On the award of damages and attorney's fees: The Court found the award of moral damages justifiable due to the petitioners' alleged malicious concoctions and fraudulent machinations, which caused the respondent besmirched reputation, social humiliation, and mental anguish. The CA found that the respondent substantiated her claims of wounded feelings, sleepless nights, and mental anxiety. Exemplary damages were also deemed proper by way of example for the public good and to deter similar actuations. Attorney's fees were justified as the respondent was constrained to retain counsel to recover her rights and protect her reputation due to the petitioners' actions. The Court reiterated that the CA's findings of fact on damages are final and conclusive.
Main Doctrine
A court that renders a decision for the reconstitution of a lost owner's duplicate certificate of title acts without jurisdiction if the certificate of title was not actually lost but is in the possession of another person. In such a case, the reconstituted title is void.