G.R. No. 235520 - DAVID PATUNGAN, VS. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the present petition is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of jurisdiction. Let copies of this Order be furnished the Register of Deeds in Lingayen, Pangasinan; the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority, Quezon City; the petitioner; and petitioner's counsel. SO OR0ERED. [9] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the RTC denied it in its Order [10] dated October 30, 2017. The RTC explained that the land subject matter of the petition for issuance was awarded to the registered owners under Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, as amended. Thus, RA 6657, a special law, governs its existence. Moreover, the 2009 DARAB Rules remain valid unless and until declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction. [11] As to petitioner's argument that OCT No. 31510 is already registered with the Register of Deeds (RD) and no longer a CLOA, the RTC ruled that the jurisdiction of the DARAB includes CLOAs registered with the Land Registration Authority (LRA). The RD is under the organization of the LRA being its registration arm. [12] Hence, the petition for review. The Petition Petitioner argues as follows: the law that governs the issuance and reconstitution of lost owner's duplicate copies of titles registered with the RD is Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529. [13] Further, Section 1(f), Rule II of the DARAB Rules which was relied upon by the RTC is not sufficient to strip the RTC of its jurisdiction over the petition for issuance. Specifically, the rule cited may only pertain to CLOAs and EPs registered with the LRA, but no Torrens title are issued yet. On the other hand, those CLOAs and EPs registered with the LRA for which there were already Torrens title issued are no longer under the jurisdiction of the DARAB, but already under that of the RTC. [14] Petitioner maintains that the petition for issuance he filed before the RTC is merely for the replacement of a lost owner's duplicate certificate of title. As such, Section 109, Chapter X of PD 1529 governs. [15] Lastly, petitioner argues that all periods pertaining to the indefeasibility of the title and the prohibitions to sell or encumber it have long expired because the title was issued way back in 2004. [16] Comment of the RD In its Comment, [17] the RD of the Province of Pangasinan (respondent) agrees with petitioner's contention that it is the RTC and not the DARAB which has jurisdiction over the petition for issuance. [18] Respondent explains that the jurisdiction of the RTC in land registration cases is conferred by Section 2 of PD 1529. [19] The Court's Ruling The Court grants the petition. The sole issue to be resolved in the present case is a pure question of law i.e. , whether the RTC has jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of an owner's duplicate copy of an OCT which was issued pursuant to a CLOA. Thus, the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rule of Court filed by petitioner before the Court is the proper remedy. [20] I