The Supreme Court clarified that a court’s act of exceeding its jurisdiction in a decision does not automatically warrant the annulment of that judgment. The key distinction lies between a court lacking jurisdiction from the outset and a court committing errors while exercising its authority. This ruling emphasizes that annulment is reserved for cases where the court fundamentally lacked the power to act, not merely where it made mistakes in its decision-making. Parties challenging court decisions must carefully consider whether the issue is a lack of jurisdiction or an error correctable through other legal remedies, such as an appeal or an action for reconveyance.

Reconstitution Gone Awry: When Can a Land Title Order Be Annulled?

The case revolves around a land dispute involving the Heirs of Procopio Borras (petitioners) and the Heirs of Eustaquio Borras (respondents). Procopio Borras owned a parcel of land (Lot No. 5275) covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. [NA] 2097. After Procopio’s death, the land was inherited by his children. Eustaquio Borras, one of the grandchildren, filed a petition for reconstitution of OCT No. [NA] 2097, seeking the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in his name. The Court of First Instance (CFI) granted the petition, ordering the reconstitution of the title in Procopio’s name but also directing the cancellation of the reconstituted title and the issuance of a TCT in Eustaquio’s name.

Upon learning of this, the Heirs of Procopio Borras filed an action for quieting of title, which was initially decided in their favor. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, stating that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction to declare the TCT null and void in a quieting of title case. The CA suggested either an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court or an action for reconveyance. Consequently, the Heirs of Procopio filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA, seeking to nullify the CFI’s order that cancelled Procopio’s title and issued a TCT to Eustaquio.

The CA dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment, stating that the petitioners failed to prove either extrinsic fraud or a lack of jurisdiction by the CFI. The appellate court acknowledged that the CFI had exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the cancellation and issuance of a new title in a reconstitution proceeding. However, it held that this was not sufficient grounds for annulment, as the CFI had initial jurisdiction over the reconstitution case. Dissatisfied, the Heirs of Procopio Borras appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CFI lacked jurisdiction to order the title transfer during a reconstitution proceeding and that annulment was the appropriate remedy.

The Supreme Court denied the petition, clarifying the grounds for annulment of judgment. Annulment can be based on either lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud, and it is considered an exceptional remedy used only when other legal options are unavailable. In this context, lack of jurisdiction refers to either lacking authority over the person or the subject matter. The Court emphasized that a petitioner must demonstrate an absolute lack of jurisdiction, not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion, to succeed in an annulment action. The concept of lacking jurisdiction does not extend to instances where a court commits grave abuse of discretion.

The Court acknowledged that the CFI acted beyond its authority by ordering the cancellation of the original title and directing the issuance of a new TCT in Eustaquio’s name during the reconstitution proceedings. The purpose of reconstitution is simply to restore a lost or destroyed title to its original form. Section 12 of Republic Act No. 26, which governs judicial reconstitution, outlines the requirements for allowing reconstitution:

Section 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having an interest in the property.

Furthermore, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 26 provides:

Section 15. If the court, after hearing, finds that the documents presented, as supported by parole evidence or otherwise, are sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, and that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or has an interest therein, that the said certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed, and that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title, an order of reconstitution shall be issued.

In essence, reconstitution is about reproducing a title in its original condition and does not determine land ownership. Despite the CFI’s overreach, the Supreme Court emphasized that the order was issued while the court was exercising its jurisdiction, not due to a lack of it. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, while the exercise of jurisdiction refers to the decisions made within that authority. Errors committed during the exercise of jurisdiction are considered errors of judgment and are subject to appeal. As the court explained:

Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal.^[28]

The Supreme Court pointed out that the CA’s earlier decision, which suggested either an annulment of judgment or an action for reconveyance, did not dictate that annulment was the only or necessarily the correct remedy. The appropriate action depends on the specific grounds for challenging the CFI’s order. In this case, because the Heirs of Procopio Borras based their claim on the court exceeding its jurisdiction rather than a fundamental lack of it, annulment was not the proper course. The proper recourse, according to the Court, would have been an action for reconveyance. This action allows the rightful owner of land wrongfully registered in another’s name to compel the transfer of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, denying the petition for annulment of judgment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment against the trial court’s order that exceeded the scope of a reconstitution proceeding. Specifically, the Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court’s action constituted a lack of jurisdiction, warranting annulment.
What is annulment of judgment and when is it appropriate?	Annulment of judgment is an exceptional remedy available only when other remedies are wanting. It’s appropriate when a judgment is void due to a lack of jurisdiction or when it was obtained through extrinsic fraud.
What is the difference between lack of jurisdiction and exceeding jurisdiction?	Lack of jurisdiction means the court never had the authority to hear the case from the beginning. Exceeding jurisdiction means the court had the authority to hear the case but overstepped its bounds by making orders beyond its power.
What is an action for reconveyance, and how does it differ from annulment of judgment?	An action for reconveyance is a legal remedy to transfer land wrongfully registered in another’s name to the rightful owner. Unlike annulment, it respects the decree of registration but seeks the transfer of property to the person with a better right.
What was the specific error the Court of First Instance (CFI) made in this case?	The CFI erred by ordering the cancellation of the original certificate of title and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in a reconstitution proceeding. Reconstitution should only restore the title to its original form without altering ownership.
Why was annulment of judgment not the proper remedy in this case?	Annulment was not proper because the CFI had jurisdiction over the reconstitution case initially, and its error was an act of exceeding its jurisdiction, not a complete lack of it. The proper remedy was an action for reconveyance.
What is the significance of Republic Act No. 26 in this case?	Republic Act No. 26 governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certificates of title. It defines the scope and limitations of reconstitution proceedings, emphasizing that the process should restore the original title without altering ownership.
Can a court’s decision be annulled if it commits a grave abuse of discretion?	No, a court’s decision cannot be annulled solely on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. Annulment requires a total absence of jurisdiction, not merely errors in judgment or abuse of discretionary powers.

This case underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of jurisdiction in legal proceedings, particularly in land title disputes. It clarifies that not all errors in judgment warrant the extraordinary remedy of annulment. Litigants must carefully assess the nature of the jurisdictional defect and pursue the appropriate legal remedies to protect their rights.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Heirs of Procopio Borras vs. Heirs of Eustaquio Borras, G.R. No. 213888, April 25, 2022