G.R. No. 121106 -

Ruling

Accordingly, new certificates of title were issued to DBP. [14] Thereafter, DBP sold the lots covered by TCT Nos. T-180723 to T-180727 and T-167752 to respondent Manila Fertilizers, Inc.. The latter, in turn, sold the lots covered by TCT Nos. T-108723 to T-108727 to respondent Polar Mines and Development Corporation. On the other hand, the property included in TCT No. T-167751 was sold by DBP to respondent spouses Villarama, for which TCT Nos. V-18494 to V-18501 were issued, and to respondents Rolando Ang See, Remedios Reyes, the spouses Cabrales and the spouses Go Gabriel. More than four years later, or on September 2, 1994, petitioner instituted before the Court of Appeals a petition to annul the trial courts decision dated January 10, 1989 and Resolution dated April 4, 1990, alleging for the first time that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case. [15] Petitioner prayed that the certificates of title issued in the names of all private respondents, except DBP, be annulled and that TCT Nos. T-167751 and T-167752 and T-187023-187027 be reinstated. On January 20, 1995, the Court of Appeals rendered the now assailed decision dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment. [16] Petitioner Durisols subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for lack of merit. [17] Hence this petition. The issues raised in this petition are: (1) whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of new duplicate owners certificate of title; and (2) whether or not petitioner was estopped from challenging the courts lack of jurisdiction. The first paragraph of Rule 47, Section 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: Grounds for annulment. The annulment may be based only on the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. At the outset, it should be stressed that in a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter is conferred by law. [18] The regional trial court, formerly the court of first instance, is a court of general jurisdiction. All cases, the jurisdiction over which is not specifically provided for by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court, fall under the jurisdiction of the regional trial court. But the regional trial court is also a court of limited jurisdiction over, among others, cadastral and land registration cases. All proceedings involving title to real property, [19] or specifically land registration cases, including its incidents such as the issuance of owners duplicate certificate of title, are matters cognizable by the regional trial courts. [20] It has been ruled that the r