G.R. No. 220940 - JOY VANESSA M. SEBASTIAN, VS. SPOUSES NELSON C. CRUZ AND CRISTINA P. CRUZ AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Sebastian requested the execution of such document to Lamberto, who promised to do so, but failed to comply. Thus, Sebastian was constrained to cause the annotation of an adverse claim in OCT No. P-41566 on August 2, 2011 in order to protect her rights over the subject land. [11] According to Sebastian, it was only on July 14, 2014 upon her inquiry with RD-Pangasinan about the status of the aforesaid title when she discovered that: ( a ) Nelson executed an Affidavit of Loss dated September 23, 2013 attesting to the loss of owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. P-41566, which he registered with the RD-Pangasinan; ( b ) the Spouses Cruz filed before the RTC a petition for the issuance of a second owner's copy of OCT No. P-41566, docketed as LRC Case No. 421; and ( c ) on March 27, 2014, the RTC promulgated a Decision granting Spouses Cruz's petition and, consequently, ordered the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. P-41566 in their names. [12] In view of the foregoing incidents, Sebastian filed the aforesaid petition for annulment of judgment before the CA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Essentially, she contended that the RTC had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of LRC Case No. 421 as the duplicate copy of OCT No. P-41566 - which was declared to have no further force in effect - was never lost, and in fact, is in her possession all along. [13] The CA Ruling In a Resolution [14] dated March 13, 2015, the CA did not give due course to Sebastian's petition and, consequently, dismissed the same outright. [15] It held that the compliance by Spouses Cruz with the jurisdictional requirements of publication and notice of hearing clothed the RTC with jurisdiction to take cognizance over the action in rem , and constituted a constructive notice to the whole world of its pendency. As such, personal notice to Sebastian of the action was no longer necessary. [16] Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration, [17] which was, however, denied in a Resolution [18] dated October 9, 2015; hence, this petition. [19] The Issue Before the Court The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly denied due course to Sebastian's petition for annulment of judgment, resulting in its outright dismissal. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the only grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. In case of absence, or lack, of jurisdiction, a court should not take cognizance of the case. Thus, the prevailing rule is that where there is want of jurisdiction over a subject matter, the judgment is rendered null and void. A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment, by which no rights are divested, from which no right can be obtained, which neither b