Philippine Bank of Communications v. Register of Deeds
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: PBCOM filed a petition for the issuance of an owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 21320, alleging it was lost. This was dismissed by RTC-Branch 62 for insufficiency of evidence, as PBCOM failed to prove it exerted all efforts to locate the title. PBCOM's motion for reconsideration was deemed abandoned. Instead of appealing, PBCOM filed a second petition with RTC-Branch 63, which was dismissed on the ground of res judicata. Procedural History: The CA dismissed PBCOM's Rule 65 petition for certiorari, holding that the dismissal on res judicata was a final order reviewable by appeal, and that all elements of res judicata were present. The CA also noted that PBCOM had previously filed a notice of appeal which it withdrew. The Petition: PBCOM filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the CA's dismissal. PBCOM argued that the Rules of Court and res judicata do not apply to land registration cases, and that it availed of the correct remedy.
Issue(s)
Whether PBCOM availed of the correct remedy to challenge the dismissal of the second petition. Whether the RTC-Branch 63 correctly dismissed the second petition on the ground of res judicata.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The February 23, 2015 Decision and February 12, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. The petition for replacement of the lost Owner's Duplicate Transfer Certificate of Title No. 21320 in LRC Adm. Case No. 12-AD-1401 is REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, La Trinidad, Benguet is DIRECTED to hear the petition with immediate dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the correct remedy: PBCOM availed of the wrong remedy by filing a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. An order of dismissal on the ground of res judicata is a final order that completely disposes of the case and leaves nothing more to be done in the RTC. Such dismissal is appealable under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The availability of an appeal precludes the remedy of certiorari, as these remedies are mutually exclusive. PBCOM's prior withdrawal of an ordinary appeal further supports this conclusion. The CA correctly dismissed the certiorari petition on this ground. On res judicata: The RTC-Branch 63 erred in dismissing the second petition on the ground of res judicata. Proceedings for the replacement of lost owner's duplicate certificates of title, as provided under Section 109 of P.D. 1529, are administrative in nature and do not pass upon the ownership of the land. Their purpose is merely the re-issuance of a new certificate in lieu of one that is lost or destroyed. The dismissal of the first petition for insufficiency of evidence was without prejudice to PBCOM's right to refile, as it only failed to sufficiently prove the loss, not that the title was not lost. Upholding res judicata would perpetually prevent PBCOM from exercising its rights as a registered owner and complying with banking laws, which would be absurd and unjust. The Rules of Court apply to land registration cases only by analogy or in a suppletory character, and the substantive right to possess and replace a lost title must be given primacy.
Main Doctrine
A registered owner who fails to prove the loss or destruction of his/her owner's duplicate certificate of title may not be barred by res judicata from refiling a new petition to replace the same, as the nature of proceedings for the replacement of owner's duplicate certificates of title only involves the re-issuance of a new certificate lost or destroyed in its original form and condition, and does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Furthermore, the Rules of Court apply to land registration cases only by analogy or in a suppletory character.