G.R. No. 180321 March 20, 2013EDITHA PADLAN, Petitioner, vs.ELENITA DINGLASAN and FELICISIMODINGLASAN, Respondents.D E C I S I O NPERALTA, J.:This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing theDecision1 dated !ne "#, "$$% of the Co!rt of &ppeals 'C&( in C&)*.R. C+No. ,-#,., and the Resol!tion" dated Octo/er "., "$$%den0ing petitioner1s 2otion for Reconsideration..The fact!al and proced!ral antecedents are as follows3Elenita Dinglasan 'Elenita( was the registered owner of a parcel oflanddesignatedas4otNo. -"5of the4i6a0Cadastrewhichiscovered /0 Transfer Certificate of Title 'TCT( No. T)1$5-$", with anaggregate area of ,",#%" s7!are 6eters. 8hile on /oard a9eepne0, Elenita:s 6other, 4ilia ;al!0ot '4ilia(, had a conversationwithone2a!raPassion'2a!ra(regardingthesaleof thesaidpropert0. ;elieving that 2a!ra was a real estate agent, 4ilia/orrowed the owner:s cop0 of the TCT fro6 Elenita and gave it to2a!ra. 2a!ra then s!/divided the propert0 into several lots fro64ot No. -"5)& to 4ot No. -"5)O, !nder the na6e of Elenita and herh!s/and #." forthe s!/9ect propert0 !nder her na6e.& few 6onthslater, or so6eti6e in &!g!st 1##$, 4orna sold the lot to petitionerEditha Padlan for P>,$$$.$$. Th!s, TCT No. 1.>#." was cancelledand TCT No. 1.%>-- was iss!ed in the na6e of petitioner.&fter learning what had happened, respondents de6andedpetitioner to s!rrender possession of 4ot No. -"5)=, /!t the latterref!sed.Respondentswerethenforcedtofileacase/eforetheRegional Trial Co!rt 'RTC( of ;alanga, ;ataan for the Cancellationof Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1.%>--, doc?eted as Civil CaseNo. >.,)24. S!66ons was, thereafter, served to petitionerthro!gh her 6other, &nita Padlan.On Dece6/er 1., 1###, respondents 6oved to declare petitioner indefa!ltandpra0edthatthe0/eallowedtopresentevidencee@parte.>On an!ar0 1%, "$$$, petitioner, thro!gh co!nsel, filed anOpposition to Declare Defendant in Defa!lt with 2otion to Dis6issCase for 4ac? of !risdiction Over the Person ofDefendant.5 Petitioner clai6ed that the co!rt did not ac7!ire9!risdiction over her, /eca!se the s!66ons was not validl0 served!pon her person, /!t onl0 /0 6eans of s!/stit!ted service thro!ghher 6other. Petitioner 6aintained that she has long /een residingin apan after she 6arried a apanese national and onl0 co6es tothe Philippines for a /rief vacation once ever0 two 0ears.On &pril 5, "$$1, Charlie Padlan, the /rother of petitioner, testifiedthat his sister is still in apan and s!/6itted a cop0 of petitioner:spassport and an envelope of a letter that was allegedl0 sent /0 hissister. Nevertheless, on &pril 5, "$$1, the RTC iss!ed anOrder- den0ing petitioner:s 6otion to dis6iss and declared her indefa!lt. Thereafter, trial ens!ed.On !l0 1, "$$5, the RTC rendered a Decision% finding petitioner to/e a /!0er in good faith and, conse7!entl0, dis6issed theco6plaint.Not satisfied, respondents so!ght reco!rse /efore the C&, doc?etedas C&)*.R. No. C+ No. ,-#,..On!ne"#, "$$%, theC&renderedaDecision, infavor of therespondent. Conse7!entl0, the C&reversed and set aside theDecision of the RTC and ordered the cancellation of the TCT iss!edin the na6e of 4orna and the petitioner, and the revival ofrespondents: own title, to wit38AERE-- iss!ed in thena6eof defendant)appelleeEdithaPadlanareC&NCE44EDandTransfer Certificate of Title No. 1.>%,5 in the na6e of theplaintiffs)appellants is RE+I+ED.SO ORDERED.#The C& fo!nd that petitioner p!rchased the propert0 in /ad faithfro64orna. The C&opined that altho!gh a p!rchaser is note@pected to go /e0ond the title, /ased on the circ!6stancess!rro!ndingthe sale, petitioner sho!ldhave cond!ctedf!rtherin7!ir0/efore/!0ingthedisp!tedpropert0.Thefactthat4orna/o!ght a 5,$$$)s7!are)6eter propert0 for onl0 P>,$$$.$$ andselling it after fo!r 6onths for the sa6e a6o!nt sho!ld have p!tpetitioner on g!ard. 8ith the s!/6ission of the !dg6ent inCri6inal Case No. >."- rendered /0 the RTC, ;ranch ", ;alanga,;ataan, entitledPeopleof thePhilippinesv.2a!raPassion1$ andthe testi6onies of respondents, the C& concl!ded that respondentss!fficientl0 esta/lished that TCT No. 1.>#." iss!ed in the na6e of4orna and TCT No. 1.%>-- iss!ed in the na6e of petitioner werefra!d!lentl0 iss!ed and, therefore, n!ll and void.&ggrieved, petitioner filed a 2otion for Reconsideration. Petitionerarg!ed that not onl0 did the co6plaint lac?s 6erit, the lower co!rtfailedto ac7!ire9!risdiction overthe s!/9ect6atter ofthecaseand the person of the petitioner.OnOcto/er "., "$$%, theC&iss!edaResol!tion11 den0ingthe6otion. TheC&concl!dedthat therationalefor thee@ception6ade in the land6ar? case of Ti9a6 v. Si/onghano01" was presentinthecase. It reasonedthat whentheRTCdeniedpetitioner:s6otion to dis6iss the case for lac? of 9!risdiction, petitioner neither6oved for a reconsideration of the order nor did she avail of an0re6ed0 provided /0 the R!les. Instead, she ?ept silent and onl0/eca6einterestedinthecaseagainwhentheC&renderedadecision adverse to her clai6.Aence, the petition assigning the following errors3I8AETAERORNOTTAEAONOR&;4ECOBRTA&SBRISDICTIONO+ER TAE PERSON O< TAE PETITIONER.II8AETAERORNOTTAEAONOR&;4ECOBRTA&SBRISDICTIONO+ER TAE SB;ECT 2&TTER O< TAE C&SE.III8AETAER OR NOT PETITIONER IS & ;BCER IN *OOD ,$$$.$$, which was thea6o!nt alleged/0respondents that the propert0was soldtopetitioner /0 4orna.-- n!ll and to revive TCT No.T)1$5-$" which was originall0 iss!ed and registered in the na6e ofthe respondentsG and '/( to order petitioner to pa0 attorne0:s feesinthes!6of P5$,$$$.$$andlitigatione@pensesof P"$,$$$.$$,pl!s cost of s!it.1,&n action Einvolving title to real propert0E 6eans that the plaintiff1sca!se of action is /ased on a clai6 that he owns s!ch propert0 orthat he has the legal rights to have e@cl!sive control, possession,en9o06ent, or dispositionof the sa6e. Title is the Elegal lin?/etween'1(apersonwhoownspropert0and'"(thepropert0itself.E ETitleE is different fro6 a Ecertificate of titleE which is thedoc!6entof ownership!ndertheTorrenss0ste6of registrationiss!ed/0thegovern6entthro!ghtheRegisterof Deeds. 8hiletitle is the clai6, right or interest in real propert0, a certificate oftitle is the evidence of s!ch clai6.1#Inthepresent controvers0,/eforetherelief pra0edfor /0therespondents in theirco6plaint can /e granted, theiss!e of who/etweenthe two contendingparties has the validtitle to thes!/9ect lot 6!st first /e deter6ined /efore a deter6ination of who/etween the6 is legall0 entitled to the certificate of title coveringthe propert0 in 7!estion.1wphi1,$$$.$$. Nota@declarationwasevenpresentedthatwo!ldshow the val!ation of the s!/9ect propert0. In fact, in one of thehearings, respondents: co!nsel infor6edtheco!rt that the0willpresent theta@declarationof thepropert0inthene@t hearingsince the0 have not 0et o/tained a cop0 fro6the Provincial&ssessor:s Office."" Aowever, the0 did not present s!ch cop0.Toreiterate, wherethe!lti6ateo/9ectiveof theplaintiffsistoo/tain title to real propert0, it sho!ld /e filed in the proper co!rthaving 9!risdiction over the assessed val!e of the propert0 s!/9ectthereof.". Since the a6o!nt alleged in the Co6plaint /0respondentsfor thedisp!ted lotis onl0 P>,$$$.$$, the2TC andnot the RTC has 9!risdiction over the action. Therefore, allproceedings in the RTC are n!ll and void.">Conse7!entl0, the re6aining iss!es raised /0 petitioner need not/e disc!ssed f!rther.8AERE