G.R. No. 222916 - HEIRS OF SPOUSES GERVACIO A. RAMIREZ AND MARTINA CARBONEL, REPRESENTED BY CESAR S. RAMIREZ AND ELMER R. ADUCA, VS. JOEY ABON AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NUEVA VIZCAYA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . [18] In sum, the CA, Former 14 th Division held that there was no valid ground for the annulment of the RTC, Branch 28's Decision dated October 4, 2013, finding that "the RTC-Br. 28 had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition in LRC No. 6748." [19] Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez filed their Motion for Reconsideration [20] dated September 1, 2015, which was denied by the CA, Former 14 th Division in the assailed Resolution. Hence, the instant appeal before the Court. Respondent Abon filed his Comment [21] dated November 12, 2016, to which the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez responded to with their Reply to Comment [22] dated March 3, 2016. Issue Stripped to its core, the sole issue to be decided by the Court in the instant case is whether the CA, Former 14 th Division erred in denying the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' Petition for Annulment of Judgment. The Court's Ruling Upon exhaustive review of the facts and the law surrounding the instant case, the Court finds the instant Petition meritorious. It must be emphasized that the central issue in the instant case is whether there is any ground under Rule 47 to annul the RTC, Branch 28's final and executory Decision dated October 4, 2013, which ordered the RD to issue a new owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 4480 in favor of respondent Abon. Under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the remedy of annulment of judgment "is resorted to in cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner, and is based on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process." [23] According to Section 3 of Rule 47, if based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. In the instant case, the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez maintain that the RTC, Branch 28 did not acquire jurisdiction over LRC Case No. 6847. Jurisprudence holds that Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529 "is the law applicable in petitions for issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title which are lost or stolen or destroyed." [24] To clarify, in the instant case, what has been lost is the owner's duplicate copy of the subject OCT, and not the original copy of the OCT on file with the RD. As held in Billote v. Solis , [25] "[a] reading of the provisions clearly reveals that Sections 18 and 19 of RA 26 applies only in cases of reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certificates of title on file with the Register of Deeds, while Section 109 of PD 1529 governs petitions for the issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title which are lost or destroyed." [26] Hence, the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez' original