THIRD DIVISION
|
FAUSTINA CAMITAN and
DAMASO LOPEZ, Petitioners, - versus - FIDELITY INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 163684
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA,* CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: April 16,
2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Decision[1]
dated November 28, 2003 and of the Resolution[2]
dated May 12, 2004, both of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 37291
entitled Fidelity Investment Corporation
v. Alipio Camitan, Faustina Camitan, Damaso Lopez, the Regional Trial Court of
Calamba, Laguna (Branch 37) and the Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna.
The
case arose from the Petition[3]
for the issuance of another duplicate copy of Certificate of Title No.
T-(12110) T-4342 (TCT) filed in 1993 by herein petitioners, together with
Alipio Camitan, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba, Laguna. The case was raffled to Branch 37 of the said
court and was docketed as SLRC Case No. 1198-93-C.
The
petition contained, among others, the allegations that: (1) the petitioners are
the true and lawful registered co-owners of a parcel of land located at
Maunong, Calamba, Laguna, consisting of 30,000 square meters covered by the TCT;
(2) the lot is declared for tax purposes under Tax Declaration No. 14187; (3)
petitioners paid the realty taxes on the said property until 1993; (4) the owner’s duplicate copy was lost and could not
be found despite diligent efforts to locate it; (5) per Certification[4]
dated June 21, 1993 of the Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna, there were no
legal claims annotated at the back of the TCT filed with that office; (6)
petitioners filed with the Register of Deeds an affidavit of loss of the said
owner’s duplicate copy; (7) they secured a certified true copy of the original
TCT from the Register of Deeds with the affidavit of loss annotated at the back
thereof; (8) at the last page of the original certificate of title, a mortgage
was annotated, which upon verification was found to have already been paid; (9)
the Register of Deeds of Calamba could not cancel the mortgage from the
original copy of the title until presentation of the owner’s duplicate copy to
the bank; and (10) petitioners were in possession of the subject property.
After
due proceedings, the RTC, in its Order[5]
dated April 8, 1994, granted the petition, directed the Register of Deeds of
Calamba, Laguna to issue a second owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT, and
declared void the first owner’s duplicate copy thereof.
Later,
on
It further said that, sometime in
March 1995, upon verification with the Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna, it
learned for the first time of the issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy
as recorded under Entry No. 357701 dated
In fine, Fidelity argued that the
Order dated April 18, 1994 is null and void, the RTC having no jurisdiction to
issue the same as the owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT was in its possession
all along and the respondents therein had no standing to file the petition on
account of the Deed of Absolute Sale they executed in its favor. It claimed that the petitioners perjured
themselves before the RTC when they stated that the duplicate copy of the TCT
was lost and that they gave notice to all who had interest in the property,
because they failed to notify Fidelity despite knowledge of the latter’s possession
of the property.
In their Comment,[8]
private respondents [herein petitioners] Faustina Camitan, Damaso Lopez, and
the surviving heirs of deceased Alipio Camitan, denied having committed
falsehoods in their petition before the trial court, which they claimed had
jurisdiction over the case. They submitted
that the long, unexplained, and questionable silence of Fidelity on its alleged
possession of the owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT and the Deed of Absolute
Sale over the property and the non-registration and titling thereof in its name
for about 27 years since the purported sale, was tainted with malice and bad
faith, thus, subjecting it to estoppel and laches.
By its Resolution dated
proceedings, he agreed to have private respondents amplify their position in
their memorandum.
In their Memorandum, private
respondents retracted their counsel’s admission on the genuineness of the
owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT presented by Fidelity, citing honest mistake
and negligence owing to his excitement and nervousness in appearing before the
CA. They pointed to some allegedly irreconcilable
discrepancies between the copy annexed to the petition and the exhibit
presented by Fidelity during the preliminary conference. They also reiterated the issue on the
validity of the purported deed of sale of the property in favor of Fidelity.
In its Comment to the Memorandum,
Fidelity countered that there were no discrepancies between the owner’s
duplicate copy it presented and the original copy on file with the Registry of
Deeds of Calamba, Laguna. It argued that
private respondents are bound by the judicial admission made by their counsel during
the preliminary conference. It, likewise,
objected to the inclusion of the issue on the validity of the deed of sale over
the property.
In the Decision dated
Hence, this petition, raising the
sole issue of –
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
WHEN IT DID NOT CONSIDER THAT THE JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF THE COUNSEL OF THE
PETITIONERS DURING THE HEARING IN C.A.-G.R. SP. NO. 37291 WAS A PALPABLE
MISTAKE.
Herein
petitioners argue that despite the existence of a judicial admission, there is
still some leeway for the court to consider other evidence presented. They point out that, even as early as in
their Memorandum before the CA, they had already retracted their counsel’s
admission on the genuineness of the owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT presented
by Fidelity, and claim that their counsel was honestly mistaken and negligent
in his admission owing to his excitement and nervousness in appearing before
the CA. Petitioners likewise cite, in
support of their position, the circumstances they alleged in their petition
before the RTC which convinced the latter to issue them a new owner’s duplicate
copy of the TCT. Further, petitioners raise
in issue the discrepancies between the certificate of title on file with the
Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna and that submitted by Fidelity during the
preliminary conference before the CA.
In
its Comment,[9] Fidelity
reiterate the arguments it presented before the CA.
We
find for the respondent.
At
the outset, we emphasize that the core issue in this case is the validity of
the issuance by the RTC of a new owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT in favor of
petitioners. The applicable law is
Section 109 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 (Property Registration
Decree), which states:
SEC. 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. – In case of loss or theft of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other person in interest and registered.
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this decree.
Petitioners
were able to convince the RTC that their owner’s duplicate copy had indeed been
lost. They appeared to have complied
with the requirements of the law. This
led the RTC to grant their petition.
Upon
discovery of the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT, Fidelity went
to the CA seeking to annul the judgment of the RTC. Unfortunately for petitioners, their counsel
admitted the genuineness of the owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT presented by
Fidelity during the preliminary conference at the CA. The following exchange is revealing:
J. MARTIN:
Counsel
for the private respondent, will you go over the owner’s copy and manifest to
the court whether that is a genuine owner’s copy?
ATTY.
Yes, Your Honor.
J. MARTIN:
Alright. Make it of record that after examining the owner’s copy of TCT NO. (T-12110) T-4342, counsel for the private respondent admitted that the same appears to be a genuine owner’s copy of the transfer certificate of title. Do you have a certified true copy of this or any machine copy that you can compare?
ATTY. QUINTOS:
Yes, Your Honor.
J. REYES:
Including all the entries at the back page.
ATTY. QUINTOS:
Yes, Your Honor.
J. MARTIN:
Does it include all the list of the encumbrances?
ATTY. QUINTOS:
Yes, Your Honor.
ATTY.
We do not admit, Your Honor this being only a xerox copy and not certified . . .
J. MARTIN:
It is only for purposes of
substitution. Will you compare that with the other copy which you already admitted to
be a genuine owner’s copy.
ATTY.
Yes,
Your Honor.
J. MARTIN:
Alright. Counsel, are you marking that?
ATTY. QUINTOS:
Your Honor, we request that this copy of the transfer certificate of title No. T-12110, T-4342 be marked as Exhibit A to A-3 for the petitioner?
J. MARTIN:
Preliminary conference.
Alright, after examining the machine copy consisting of three pages and comparing the same with the admittedly genuine owner’s copy of the transfer certificate of title, counsel prayed for the substitution of the machine copy – after marking them as Exhibits A-A-3 inclusive. We will return the owner’s copy to you so that you can submit this already in lieu thereof.
This is a preliminary conference. Unless you have other incidents to thresh out, I think that we can terminate the conference this morning. Counsel for the private respondents?[10]
The
foregoing transcript of the preliminary conference indubitably shows that
counsel for petitioners made a judicial admission and failed to refute that
admission during the said proceedings despite the opportunity to do so. A judicial admission is an admission, verbal
or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
which dispenses with the need for proof
with respect to the matter or fact admitted.
It may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.[11]
Petitioners,
in their Memorandum before the CA, attempted to retract their counsel’s judicial
admission on the authenticity of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT in the
possession of Fidelity. Petitioners explicate that the wrong admission was an
honest mistake and negligence attributable to the counsel’s nervousness and
excitement in appearing for the first time before the CA. However, as correctly pointed out by the CA,
such an admission may only be refuted upon a proper showing of palpable mistake
or that no such admission was made. Thus, the claim of “honest mistake and
negligence” on the part of the counsel due to his excitement and nervousness in
appearing before the CA did not suffice.
Petitioners
now claim that the “honest mistake and negligence” of their counsel amount to
palpable mistake. They also enumerate
observed discrepancies between the original TCT on file with the Register of
Deeds of Calamba, Laguna and the owner’s duplicate copy presented by Fidelity,
to wit:
1. On
the above left margin of the xerox copy of the ORIGINAL COPY of TCT No.
(T-12110) T-4342 on file with the Register of Deeds, Calamba, Laguna in
question, (Annex A, Respondent’s Petition in question before the Court of
Appeals) Annex C, supra, the PRINTED WORDS were:
“(JUDICIAL FORM NO. 109)
(Revised September, 1954.)
However,
in the belated submission of the alleged xerox copy of the alleged duplicate
copy of the title in question by the respondent to the Court of Appeals (Exh.
A; Annex “H”, supra,) the following PRINTED WORDS appeared:
“(JUDICIAL FORM NO. 109-D)
(Revised September, 1954.)” (Emphasis
supplied)
x x x x
[2.] The
Serial Number of the Xerox copy of the original copy of the title in question
on file with the Register of Deeds of Calamba City was written in
handwriting as “158640”.
However, the Serial Number of the purported
duplicate copy of the original title in question of the respondent was PRINTED
in letters and in figures: “No. 158640”.
3. The
typewritten words “
However, in Exh. “A”, Annex H, supra, of the
respondent, it was typewritten with small type of letters.
4. In
the FIGURES of the xerox copy of the original copy of the said title: NO.
(T-12110) T-4342 in question, they were written in a big type of
letters. The same is true in the letters
“T” and DASH after the letter “T”. The
figures “4342” were printed in big letters.
However, the printed and handwritten
figures and words in Exh. A, Annex C, supra, were small. The figures 4342 were in handwriting.
5. In
the xerox copy of the original copy of title of the property in question
covered by TCT No. (T-12110) T-4342, which cancelled TCT No. T-10700, the
type of letter “T”, figures, 10700 and dash thereof were in big letters.
However, the purported duplicate copy of
the original copy of the title in question submitted to the Court of Appeals by
the respondent, the type of the letter, dash and figures thereof were in small
letters.
6. The
type of the printed words, dashes, and figures in the body of the Xerox copy of
the original title in question, it was typewritten with big letters and
figures.
The purported duplicate copy of the original
title of the property in question submitted to the Court of Appeals by the
respondent, the letters, dashes and figures there of were typewritten in
small letters.
7. The
letters, dashes, and figures of the xerox copy of the original title in
question were typewritten in a manual typewriter with big letters.
In Exh. “A”, Annex H, supra, the purported
duplicate copy of the original title in question submitted to the Court of
Appeals by the respondent, they were typewritten in a manual typewriter with
small letters and figures.
8. The
signatures of the Registrar of Deeds in the xerox of the original copy of the
title in question; had loop in small letter “d” and the rest had no loops.
In Exh. A, Annex H, supra, of the purported
duplicate copy of the title in question submitted by the respondent to the
Court of Appeals, there was no loop, except there were two (2) open vertical
lines below thereof after four letters.
9. The
xerox copy of the original copy of the title in question after TCT No. T-10700
was cancelled, it was entered in the Register of Deeds of Sta. Cruz, Laguna
since
10. In
view thereof, it is but NATURAL that the judicial forms and descriptions of
letters and figures of the original copy of title in question and file with the
Register of Deeds its duplicate copy since September 24, 1954, were the SAME
and already OLD.
11. However,
in Exh. “A”, Annex H, supra, the purported duplicate copy of the title in
question submitted by the respondent to the Court of Appeals, the judicial form
thereof was already small and it clearly appeared that it might have been NEWLY
ISSUED NEW COPY OF TITLE. It might be
the revised new form in 1988 that is presently used in the Register of Deeds.[12]
Upon
examination of the said exhibits on record, it appears that the alleged
discrepancies are more imagined than real.
Had these purported discrepancies been that evident during the
preliminary conference, it would have been easy for petitioners’ counsel to
object to the authenticity of the owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT presented
by Fidelity. As shown in the transcript
of the proceedings, there was ample opportunity for petitioners’ counsel to
examine the document, retract his admission, and point out the alleged
discrepancies. But he chose not to
contest the document. Thus, it cannot be
said that the admission of the petitioners’ counsel was made through palpable
mistake.
Every
counsel has the implied authority to do all acts which are necessary or
incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his
client. Any act performed by counsel
within the scope of his general and implied authority is, in the eyes of the
law, regarded as the act of the client himself.
Consequently, the mistake or negligence of the client’s counsel, which may
result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment, generally binds the client. To rule otherwise would encourage every
defeated party, in order to salvage his case, to claim neglect or mistake on
the part of his counsel. Then, there
would be no end to litigation, as every shortcoming of counsel could be the
subject of challenge by his client through another counsel who, if he is also
found wanting, would likewise be disowned by the same client through another
counsel, and so on, ad infinitum.
This
rule admits of exceptions, i.e., where
the counsel’s mistake is so great and serious that the client is deprived of
his day in court or of his property without due process of law. In these cases, the client is not bound by
his counsel’s mistakes and the case may even be reopened in order to give the
client another chance to present his case.[13] In the case at bar, however, these
exceptional circumstances do not obtain.
With
proof that the owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT was in the possession of
Fidelity, the RTC Decision dated
The
circumstances cited by petitioners in support of their petition, i.e., the TCT is still in their names;
the property in question is declared for tax purposes in their names; they were
the persons informed by the Municipal Treasurer of Calamba, Laguna for the
non-payment of real estate taxes for the years 1990-1993; they paid the real
estate taxes due on the property; no one was claiming the property per the
certification of the
Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna;
the questionable delay of Fidelity in registering its claim over the property under
the purported sale of
In
a petition for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of a certificate of
title in lieu of one allegedly lost, on which this case is rooted, the RTC,
acting only as a land registration court with limited jurisdiction, has no
jurisdiction to pass upon the question of actual ownership of the land covered
by the lost owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of title.[15] Consequently, any question involving the
issue of ownership must be threshed out in a separate suit where the trial
court will conduct a full-blown hearing with the parties presenting their
respective evidence to prove ownership over the subject realty.[16]
At
this point, we reiterate the principle that possession of a lost owner’s
duplicate copy of a certificate of title is not necessarily equivalent to
ownership of the land covered by it. Registration
of real property under the Torrens System does not create or vest title because
it is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
The certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is
merely an evidence of title over the particular property described therein.[17]
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision
dated
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O
N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* As replacement of Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes who was the ponente in Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 37291.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rubenm
T. Reyes (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Edhardo P. Cruz
and Noel G. Tijam, concurring; rollo, pp.
9-17
[2]
[3] Rollo, pp. 53-55.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] RULES OF COURT, Rule 129, Sec. 4.
[12] Rollo, pp. 42-46. (Citations omitted)
[13] Juani
v. Alarcon, G.R. No. 166849,
[14] Feliciano
v. Zaldivar, G.R. No. 162593, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 182, 192; Macabalo-Bravo v. Macabalo, G.R. No.
144099, September 26, 2005, 471 SCRA 60, 72; Heirs of Juan and Ines Panganiban v. Dayrit, G.R. No. 151235, July
28, 2005, 464 SCRA 370, 378; Rexlon
Realty Group, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128412, March 15, 2002,
379 SCRA 306, 319; Reyes, Jr. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 136478, March 27, 2000, 328 SCRA 864, 869; New Durawood Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 111732, February 20, 1996, 253 SCRA 740, 747-748; Demetriou v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115595, November 14, 1994,
238 SCRA 158, 162.
[15] Macabalo-Bravo
v. Macabalo, supra; Rexlon Realty
Group, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra.
[16] Heirs
of Susana De Guzman Tuazon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125758, January
20, 2004, 420 SCRA 219, 227-228.
[17] Supra notes 15 and 16; Pineda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
114712, August 25, 2003, 409 SCRA 438, 448-449.