G.R. No. 192353 - MERCEDITA C. COOMBS, VS. VICTORIA C. CASTAÑEDA, VIRGILIO VELOSO SANTOS, SPS. PANCHO & EDITH LEVISTE, BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MUNTINLUPA CITY.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the lost owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title [No.] 6715 of the Registry of Deeds of Muntinlupa City as null and void. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City is ordered to issue a new owner's duplicate copy of the said TCT No. 6715 under the same terms and conditions as the original thereof and to include thereon all annotations which have not been lawfully ordered cancelled by the Court upon payment of all fees prescribed by law. [4] Petitioner Coombs narrated in the said petition that she is the owner of the real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6715 situated on Apitong Street, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City; that sometime in March 2005, when she tried to pay the real property tax due relative to the real property covered by TCT No. 6715, she was told that said real property was no longer listed under her name; that upon further verification, she came to know that TCT No. 6715 had already been cancelled and had been replaced by TCT No. 14115 issued in the name of herein respondent Virgilio Veloso Santos (Santos); that TCT No. 6715 was ordered cancelled by the RTC in a Decision dated August 26, 2004 in LRC Case No. 04-035, entitled " In Re: Petition for the Issuance of Second Owner's Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6715, [by] Mercedita C. Coombs, represented by her Atty.-in-Fact Victoria C. Castañeda "; that she neither authorized Victoria C. Castañeda (Castañeda) to file petition for issuance of a second owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 sometime in 2004, nor asked her to sell the subject property to herein respondent Santos; that Santos, in turn, sold the same to herein respondents Pancho and Edith Leviste (spouses Leviste); that the spouses Leviste executed a real estate mortgage over the subject property in favor of herein respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands Family Savings Bank (BPI Family). [5] Petitioner Coombs anchored her prayer for the annulment of the RTC Decision on the ground that, since the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 had never been lost as it had always been in her custody, [6] the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of LRC Case No. 04-035. The Assailed Court of Appeals Resolutions In its Resolution dated April 30, 2009, relying on Section 1, Rule 47 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment. According to the appellate court A careful reading of the petition reveals that there is no allegation in the petition that the petitioner has failed to avail of any of the aforementioned remedies in Section 1 through no fault of his before instituting the herein petition. This is an important condition for the availment of this remedy. The petition is also not sufficient in substance. Under Section 2[,] Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the grounds for Annulment of Judgment are: (a) lack of jurisdiction of