FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210698. September 14, 2021.]
BENJAMIN DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs.AGAPITO BALAGTAS, JR., ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2021which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"G.R. No. 210698 (Benjamin Del Rosario v. Agapito Balagtas, Jr., et al.) — The remedy of annulment of judgment is equitable in character and is allowed only in exceptional cases. 1 Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court impose strict conditions in challenging a decision that has long become final and executory. The rules are explicit that annulment of judgment may not be invoked where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedy and lost, or where he has failed to avail of those remedies through his own fault or negligence. 2 Moreover, the grounds for annulment of judgment are limited to exceptional cases of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, 3 thus:
Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
Here, the respondents cannot pursue the remedies in the ordinary course of law such as new trial and appeal because they are not parties to the case that the petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title. Furthermore, the remedy of relief from judgment is available only when there is fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. Notably, however, the respondents invoke lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment. This refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. Corollarily, the respondents must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. 4 On this point, it has been consistently ruled that when the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. It is, therefore, the fact of the loss or existence of the owner's duplicate certificate, and not whether the process prescribed by applicable law was successfully complied with, that determines the presence or lack of jurisdiction of the trial court. 5
In this case, the owner's duplicate certificates of title were not lost nor stolen. To be sure, the respondents presented the owner's duplicate certificates of title during the reception of evidence before the trial court. As the Court of Appeals (CA) aptly observed, the existence of the certificates of title, which were in possession of the respondents is unrebutted. Verily, the existence of these prior titles ipso facto nullifies the proceedings for the issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title. 6 Hence, the CA correctly annulled the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Lastly, the Court affirms the award of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Republic of the Philippines v. "G" Holdings, Inc., 512 Phil. 253 (2005) citing Cerezo v. Tuazon, 469 Phil. 1020 (2004).
2.Heirs of Maura So v. Obliosca, 566 Phil. 397, 406 (2008).
3.Macalalag v. Ombudsman, 468 Phil. 918, 923 (2004).
4.Manila v. Gallardo-Manzo, 672 Phil. 460 (2011).
5.Josefina C. Billote v. Imelda Solis, et al., 760 Phil. 712 (2015).
6.Sebastian v. Spouses Cruz, 807 Phil. 738 (2017).