Civ Bilyote

JUMALON, Jewelyn A.
4B
BILLOTE, petitioner, vs. SOLIS, respondent.

G.R. No. 181057, June 17, 2015, Peralta, J.
FACTS:
The property subject of the instant petition is a parcel of land situated in the Municipality of
Urdaneta, Pangasinan covered by TCT issued under the names of the spouses Hilario Solis and
Dorotea Corla, who had begotten three children, namely, Ludovico Solis, and respondents
Imelda Solis and Adelaida Solis-Dalope.
After Hilario’s death, Dorotea contracted a subsequent marriage with Segundo Billote, with
whom she had two children namely, petitioner Josefina C. Billote and William C. Billote.On the
laim that the owner’s duplicate copy of the subject property’s title was missing, respondent
Imeldga filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of New Owner’s Duplicate Certificate.
Among several other documentary evidence, respondent Imelda submitted a copy of a Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person with Quitclaim whereby Dorotea
allegedly conveyed her share in the subject property to respondents Imelda and Adelaida, as
well as an Affidavit of Loss notifying the Register of Deeds of the title’s loss.
The RTC granted the petition, finding that the jurisdictional requirements of Section 109 of PD
No. 1529 have been duly complied with.
Upon receipt of the new owner’s duplicate copy, respondents Imelda and Adelaida registered
the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, pursuant to which TCT was cancelled and a new one was
issued.
Respondents Imelda and Adelaida executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, conveying the entire
subject property, including the ½ conjugal share of Dorotea, in favor of respondent Spouses
Badar. Pursuant thereto, another TCT was issued in the name of the spouses.
Petitioner, through her atty-in-fact, filed before the CA a petition for annulment of judgment
seeking to annul the Decision of the RTC granting Respondent Imelda’s petition for the issuance
of new owner’s duplicate certificate of TCT.
Petitioner alleged that Dorotea executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying her ½ conjugal
share in the subject property in favor of petitioner. William then when to the RD and learned
that TCT had already been cancelled despite the fact that the owner’s duplicate copy was in his
possession. Thus, petitioner sought the nullification of the RTC’s decision ordering the issuance
of the new owner’s copy of title for lack of jurisdiction in view of the fact that the owner’s
duplicate of title was not lost, but had all the while been in the possession of her brother,
William.
ISSUE:
W/N respondent sps. Badar are purchaser in good faith for value.
HELD:
No.
At the outset, it must be noted that the applicable law in this case is not Sec. 18 and 19 of R.A.
26 but Sec. 109 of PD No. 1529. A reading of the provision clearly reveals that Sec. 18 and 19 of
R.A. No. 26 applies only in cases of reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certificate of title
on file with the RD, while Sec. 109 of PD No. 1529 governs petitions for the issuance of new
owner’s duplicate certificate of title which are lost or destroyed.
This does not mean however that this Court can take cognizance of respondents’ assertion that
since the trial court applied the correct procedure imposed by law herein, the trial court
necessarily ha jurisdiction to order the issuance of the second owner’s duplicate copy of title.
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. Reconstitution can validly
be made only in case of loss of the original, the fact of loss of the duplicate certificate is
jurisdictional.
In this case, the appellate court categorically found that the owner’s duplicate of TCT was not,
in fact lost, but was in possession of William Billote all along. While respondents Imelda and
Adelaida claimed they did not know the whereabouts of the duplicate, and asserted that
William even admitted that he did not know where the same is, they never refuted such finding
of the CA. This Court, does not find any reason to deviate from the same. Accordingly, since the
owner’s duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but was in the possession of William, the
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate
certificate of title.
Anent the findings of the CA that since the subject property had already passed into the hands
of Sps. Badar, innocent purchasers for value, having bought withought notice that some other
person has right or interest over the same, the title issued to them remains valid and cannot be
nullified, the same cannot be conclusively affirmed. This Court observes that the conclusion
that the sps. Badar were innocent purchasers for value, lacks sufficient basis. The CA merely
declared that the spouses appear to be purchasers in good faith without specifying material
evidence supporting such declarations. The fact that the subject property was already covered
by the title issued under the names of respondents does not automatically lead to the
conclusion that the sps. had no knowledge of some other party’s interest over the property.

Civ Bilyote

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civ Bilyote

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civ Bilyote

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JUMALON, Jewelyn A.

BILLOTE, petitioner, vs. SOLIS, respondent.

You might also like