Ibias v. Macabeo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land originally registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 24605, co-owned by Albina Natividad Y. Perez and Marcelo Ibias. Respondent Benita Perez Macabeo, an heir of Albina, filed a complaint for annulment of title against petitioners Spouses Ernesto and Gonigonda Ibias. Benita alleged that Ernesto, another heir, executed an Affidavit of Loss for the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 24605, falsely claiming it was lost while in his parents' possession. This led to the reconstitution of the title as TCT No. 245124 under the Spouses Ibias' names, thereby depriving Benita and her siblings of their rightful share in the property. Ernesto countered that he diligently searched for the title, Benita offered to sell it for P1,000.00 as her share, but failed to produce it, leading him to believe it was lost and to pursue reconstitution in good faith. Procedural History: Benita filed a complaint for annulment of title against the Spouses Ibias on November 12, 2001. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, ruled in favor of Benita, ordering the cancellation of TCT No. 245124 and the reinstatement of TCT No. 24605. The Spouses Ibias appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling on May 30, 2012, and subsequently denied the Spouses Ibias' motion for reconsideration on December 11, 2012. The Spouses Ibias then filed the present petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Spouses Ibias filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. Their sole assignment of error contends that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's order to cancel TCT No. 245124 and reinstate TCT No. 24605, arguing that the assailed decision contravenes established facts, evidence, and existing law and jurisprudence. They maintain that the cancellation of their title was erroneous, while Benita, in her comment, asserts that the CA committed no reversible error and that the evidence supports the cancellation and reinstatement.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it affirmed the order of the court a quo cancelling TCT No. 245124 and reinstating TCT No. 24605, considering the validity of the reconstituted title. Whether the reconstituted title (TCT No. 245124) is void due to fraud in its procurement, and whether the Spouses Ibias acted fraudulently by not pursuing remedies under Section 107 of PD 1529.
Ruling
The petition has no merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the RTC and CA, upholding the cancellation of TCT No. 245124 and the reinstatement of TCT No. 24605.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the validity of the reconstituted title and the cancellation of TCT No. 245124: The Court reiterated that the reconstitution of a title is merely the re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate and does not determine ownership. Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529) provides the procedure for the loss of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, requiring due notice under oath to the Register of Deeds and a court order after due hearing. However, Section 109 of PD 1529, which governs reconstitution, applies only if the owner's duplicate certificate is indeed lost or destroyed. If the certificate of title has not been lost but is in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void, and the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. Such a decision may be attacked at any time. Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6732, amending Section 19 of RA No. 26, mandates that if a recovered certificate of title is not in the name of the same person in whose favor the reconstituted certificate was issued, the matter must be brought to the Regional Trial Court for cancellation of the reconstituted title. On the issue of fraud and alternative remedies: Section 11 of RA No. 6732 explicitly states that a reconstituted title obtained by means of fraud, deceit, or other machination is void ab initio. In this case, the evidence, including Ernesto's letter to Benita requesting the title, clearly showed that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 24605 was in Benita's possession and was not lost. The Spouses Ibias did not contest the genuineness of the photocopy of TCT No. 24605 offered in evidence by Benita. Therefore, there was no justification for the issuance of a reconstituted title in favor of the Spouses Ibias, making its cancellation proper. The Court also noted that Ernesto could have availed of Section 107 of PD 1529, which provides for a petition to compel the surrender of a withheld duplicate certificate, instead of resorting to an Affidavit of Loss when the title was not actually lost.
Main Doctrine
A reconstituted title obtained by means of fraud, deceit or other machination is void ab initio. If a certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted title is void and the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction.