Heirs of Procopio Borras vs. Heirs of Eustaquio Borras

The Court held that a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is strictly confined to grounds of extrinsic fraud or absolute lack of jurisdiction; an order issued in excess of jurisdiction or amounting to grave abuse of discretion does not satisfy this threshold, as it constitutes an error in the exercise of jurisdiction remediable by appeal or, in cases of wrongful registration, an action for reconveyance.

The dispute involves Lot No. 5275 in Legazpi City, originally registered under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. (NA) 2097 in the name of Procopio Borras. Upon Procopio’s death, his five children inherited the property, and subsequent generations inherited their respective shares. In 1980, Eustaquio Borras, a grandson of Procopio, initiated a reconstitution proceeding before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Albay. The CFI issued an order directing the Register of Deeds to reconstitute OCT No. (NA) 2097 and subsequently cancel it in favor of issuing Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 21502 in Eustaquio’s name. Decades later, in 2004, the other co-heirs discovered the title transfer during a barangay conciliation over competing ownership claims, prompting them to initiate judicial proceedings to challenge the validity of TCT No. 21502.

• Procopio Borras originally owned Lot No. 5275, covered by OCT No. (NA) 2097. Upon his death, the property passed to his five children, and subsequently to their respective descendants.
• Eustaquio Borras, son of heir Inocencio, filed a petition for reconstitution of the allegedly lost OCT before the CFI of Albay, docketed as Cad. Case No. RT-1998.
• On July 7, 1980, the CFI issued an order directing the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the title in Procopio’s name, cancel the reconstituted title, and issue TCT No. 21502 in Eustaquio’s name based on the documents presented.
• TCT No. 21502 was subsequently issued in Eustaquio’s name. The co-heirs remained unaware of the title transfer for nearly two decades.
• In April 2004, respondents asserted ownership over Lot No. 5275. During barangay conciliation proceedings, petitioners discovered the existence of TCT No. 21502.
• Petitioners filed an action for quieting of title in the RTC on October 12, 2004. The RTC declared TCT No. 21502 null and void and reinstated OCT No. (NA) 2097.
• The CA reversed the RTC, holding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to nullify a title issued by a court of equal jurisdiction in a cadastral/reconstitution proceeding, and indicated that petitioners should pursue annulment of judgment or reconveyance.
• Petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47, alleging that the 1980 CFI order was issued without jurisdiction. The CA dismissed the petition, finding no extrinsic fraud or absolute lack of jurisdiction, and noting that an action for reconveyance remained available.

• Petitioner maintained that the 1980 CFI Order was void for lack of jurisdiction, as a reconstitution proceeding does not authorize a court to cancel an existing title or adjudicate ownership in favor of another party.
• Petitioner argued that a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 was the exclusive and proper remedy, given that the 1980 order was discovered only in 2004, rendering ordinary remedies like new trial, appeal, or petition for relief unavailable through no fault of the petitioners.
• Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition and directing the filing of a reconveyance action, asserting that the jurisdictional defect rendered the title void ab initio and required annulment rather than a separate reconveyance suit.

• Procedural Issues: Whether a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 constitutes the proper remedy to assail a trial court order issued in excess of jurisdiction in a reconstitution proceeding, particularly when the judgment was discovered decades after promulgation.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the trial court’s act of cancelling a reconstituted title and issuing a new transfer certificate to a different party constitutes an absolute lack of jurisdiction or merely an excess of jurisdiction correctible by appeal or an action for reconveyance.

• Procedural: The Court ruled that the petition for annulment of judgment was improperly instituted. Annulment of judgment is an exceptional equitable remedy available only upon a strict showing of extrinsic fraud or absolute lack of jurisdiction, and only when ordinary remedies are unavailable through no fault of the petitioner. The late discovery of the 1980 order did not justify resorting to Rule 47 because the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the trial court was entirely devoid of jurisdiction at the inception of the case. An action for reconveyance remained an available and appropriate remedy.
• Substantive: The Court held that the CFI’s order cancelling the reconstituted title and directing the issuance of TCT No. 21502 to Eustaquio Borras was an error committed in the exercise of jurisdiction, not a total absence of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law; once validly acquired, errors in its exercise constitute mere errors of judgment reviewable on appeal. Because the CFI possessed jurisdiction over the reconstitution petition, its subsequent overreach did not render the judgment void. The proper recourse was an action for reconveyance, which respects the finality of the registration decree while compelling the transfer of property to the rightful owner.

• Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 — An extraordinary equitable remedy available only on grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction over the person or subject matter, and strictly when ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. The Court applied this doctrine to reject the petition, emphasizing that excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion does not satisfy the absolute lack of jurisdiction requirement.
• Distinction Between Lack of Jurisdiction and Excess of Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to hear and decide a case, whereas the exercise of jurisdiction pertains to the rulings rendered within that authority. Errors committed in the exercise of jurisdiction are mere errors of judgment correctible by appeal, not grounds for declaring a judgment void. The Court relied on this distinction to hold that the CFI’s statutory overreach in the reconstitution case did not oust it of jurisdiction.
• Action for Reconveyance — A legal and equitable remedy to compel the transfer of property wrongfully registered in another’s name back to the true owner, without impugning the decree’s finality. The Court directed this as the proper recourse for petitioners, as it harmonizes the Torrens system’s principle of incontrovertibility with the substantive right to recover wrongfully registered land.

• "Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein. 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." — The Court invoked this passage to distinguish void judgments (absolute lack of jurisdiction) from erroneous judgments (excess of jurisdiction), thereby foreclosing the Rule 47 remedy and classifying the CFI’s order as an appealable error of judgment.
• "A reconstitution of title does not pass upon the ownership of land covered by the lost or destroyed title but merely determines whether a re-issuance of such title is proper." — The Court cited this principle to clarify the limited statutory scope of reconstitution proceedings under R.A. No. 26, explaining why the CFI’s directive to transfer ownership exceeded the proceeding’s boundaries yet remained an exercise of jurisdiction rather than a jurisdictional nullity.

• Toledo v. Court of Appeals, 765 Phil. 649 (2015) — Cited to establish that annulment of judgment is an exceptional remedy in equity, available only when other ordinary remedies are wanting.
• Spouses Manila v. Spouses Manzo, 672 Phil. 460 (2011) — Cited to define lack of jurisdiction in Rule 47 as requiring a showing of absolute absence of jurisdiction over the person or subject matter, not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion.
• Lasala v. National Food Authority, 767 Phil. 285 (2015) — Cited to reinforce that jurisdictional defects for annulment do not embrace grave abuse of discretion, and that errors committed in the exercise of jurisdiction are appealable errors of judgment.
• Republic v. Spouses Fule, G.R. No. 239273 (2020) — Cited to explain that reconstitution proceedings merely reproduce a lost or destroyed title in its original form and do not adjudicate ownership or authorize the cancellation of an existing title in favor of another.
• Uy v. Court of Appeals, 769 Phil. 705 (2015) — Cited to define an action for reconveyance as the proper equitable remedy to compel the transfer of wrongfully registered land to the true owner while respecting the decree’s incontrovertibility.

• Rule 47 of the Rules of Court — Governs petitions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; cited to delineate the strict requirements of extrinsic fraud or absolute lack of jurisdiction, and to preclude the remedy when ordinary recourses like appeal or reconveyance remain available.
• Republic Act No. 26, Sections 12 and 15 — Governs judicial reconstitution of Torrens titles; cited to establish that reconstitution is strictly limited to reproducing a lost or destroyed title upon sufficient proof, and does not confer authority to cancel an existing title or transfer ownership to a new party.