HEIRS OF TUAZON VS CA

GR No. 125758 | January 20, 2004 The court also finds the petition is indeed one for
SECOND DIVISION, CALLEJO, SR., J.
FACTS
The case involves parcels of land owned by Nazario
De Guzman under Original Certificate of Title No.
4331.  After his death and upon the approval of the
court the said parcels of land was sold by his surviving
spouse, Maria Gonzaga to Alejandro Santos
wherein Original Certificate of Title No. 4331 was
cancelled and in lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 21839 was issued by the Register of Deeds of
Rizal.  respect to title to real property. This was further
Eventually Alejandro Santos sold the lot to Jacinto
Dela Cruz and Andrea de Leon with TCT 43164,then
the latter sold it to Gabriel Dela Cruz with TCT 47790
whom sold it to Isidro Victorio.  After which Isidro
Victorio in turn sold to Victorio et.al.
However on November 5, 1993, the Heirs of Tuazon
filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of
Antipolo Rizal, Branch 71, claiming that owners
duplicate copy of the Original Certificate of Title No.
4331 was lost when in fact it was already cancelled
upon the sale of the land to Alejandro Santos. The
court’s order of issuing a new owners duplicate of
Original Certificate Of Title No. 4331 cast a cloud on
the titles of the Victorio et.al, causing the latter to
file an action for Quieting of Title Nullification and
Cancellation of Title in Branch 74 of the same
court.
The Heirs of Tuazon averred that Victorio et, al’s
petition should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, that the order of the court granting the
issuance of a new original certificate of title has
attained finality and can no longer be amended,
modified or set aside and that a co-equal court has
no jurisdiction to annul and or reverse an order as
the jurisdiction is exclusively lodged with the court
of appeals as provided in Section 9 of B.P. 129.
Therefore, Victorio et. Al no longer has a cause of
action to speak of.
quieting of title and nullification and cancellation of
title. Thus, Victorio et,al assert therein that the
issuance to the heirs of Tuzaon of a new owners
duplicate copy of OCT No. 4331, which was procured
by fraudulent representation, casts a cloud on their
titles and, therefore, should be ordered cancelled. The
Supreme Court also cited the case of Baricuatro, Jr.
v. Court of Appeals wherein it held that:
Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the
removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with
supported by Article 476 of the Civil Code.
Victorio et. al’s complaint before the RTC Branch 74
seeks the removal of a cloud from and an affirmation of
their ownership over the disputed properties covered
by the titles issued subsequent to the cancellation of
OCT No. 4331. Penultimate to the primary relief
sought is the their prayer for the cancellation of the
new owners duplicate copy of OCT No. 4331 issued to
the Heirs of Tuzaon. Hence, contrary to the heirs’
asseveration, Victorio et, al’s petition before Branch
74 makes out a case for quieting of title, and
nullification and cancellation of title, and not a
mere annulment of a final order of the RTC as
viewed under par. (2), Sec. 9, B.P. Blg. 129.
Under the circumstances, the case before
Branch 74 was actually a real action, affecting as it
does title to or possession of real property,
jurisdiction over which is clearly vested in the
Regional Trial Court as provided in par. (2), Sec.
19, B.P. Blg. 129.

The Regional Trial Court issued an order denying the

heirs’ prayer to dismiss considering that the petition for
the issuance of new owners duplicate copy of OCT No.
4431 had long become final and executor and that the
present case involves action for the cancellation and
nullification of title which is entirely different from that
filed by the heirs.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Victorio et. Al has a cause of action
against the Heirs of Tuazon?

RULING: YES.

It is axiomatic that the allegations in the complaint

determine the nature of the action, and
consequently, the jurisdiction of the courts. This is
because the complaint must contain a concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting the
cause of action and specify the relief sought.