What is before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari to reverse a resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the action for certiorari1 [Under Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.] assailing an order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila, allowing execution pending appeal of an order for summary judgment directing the Register of Deeds to issue second owner's duplicate copies of titles of real property purportedly lost.

The facts are as follows:

Petitioner Arsenio P. Reyes, Jr. and Rena, Rebecca, and Renato all surnamed Reyes are legitimate children of respondent Arsenio R. Reyes, Sr. by his marriage to Amparo Reyes. During their coveture, Arsenio and Amparo Reyes acquired several property which remained intact until respondent Arsenio R. Reyes, Sr. left his wife to live with his mistress, with whom he begot eight (8) children.

The legitimate children, discontented with the highly immoral and illicit acts of their father in getting a mistress, either left for abroad or got married. Petitioner Arsenio P. Reyes, Jr. was the only one left with his father Arsenio, Sr. and worked in the office of his father as clerk and errand boy. His service was not compensated regularly by his father. And because of the accumulated salaries that were unpaid by his father, the latter sold to him a property located at 60 Lourdes Castillo Street, Don Manuel, Quezon City the place where he was living.

After some time, petitioner discovered that his father conveyed several parcels of real property located in Nueva Ecija to his spurious children without the knowledge and consent of his legitimate children. When petitioner confronted his father about this, the latter got angry and drove him away from the office. Later, his father filed a complaint against petitioner with the City Prosecutor of Manila for theft and falsification, which, however, was dismissed for lack of evidence.

On January 2, 1997, Arsenio Reyes, Sr. filed with the Regional Trial Court, Manila a complaint for recovery of stolen titles2 [Docketed as Civil Case No. 97-81388.] which was raffled to Branch 26, presided over by Judge Eudoxia T.Gualberto.

On November 24, 1997, before trial but after the parties had submitted their pre-trial briefs, Arsenio, Sr. filed a motion for summary judgment and the surrender of five (5) stolen titles. Petitioner Arsenio, Jr. opposed the motion. However, on January 16, 1998, the trial court issued an order directing the Register of Deeds of Manila to issue second owner's duplicate copies of TCT Nos. 28607 and 28608, and the Registry of Deeds of Nueva Ecija to issue second owner's duplicate copies of TCT No. 205272 and TCT No. 205273.3 [Petition, Annex "G", Rollo, pp. 25-26.]

On March 10, 1998 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.4 [Petition, Annex "H", Rollo, pp. 27-30.] However, the trial court denied the same.5 [Petition, Annex "I", Rollo, p. 31.] On June 1, 1998 petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. Pending appeal, the trial court issued execution pending appeal, by an order6 [Petition, Annex "C", Rollo, pp. 17-18.] dated July 3, 1998.

On July 30, 1998 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the court denied the same.7 [Petition, Annex "D". Rollo, p. 19.] On September 14, 1998, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari.8 [Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 48977, Petition, Annex "N", Rollo, pp. 42-49.] On September 23, 1998 the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision denying the petition, the dispositive portion of which reads:

Petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration but this was also denied.10 [Petition, Annex "B", Rollo, pp. 14-15.]

Hence, this petition.11 [Filed on December 23, 1998, Rollo, pp. 3-9.]

The Court of Appeals resolved the petition on a technicality; nonetheless, the parties had the opportunity to ventilate the issues fully, which in the main, are legal. The facts are clear and undisputed.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition based on Rule 46, Section 3 which provides that:

x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

The issue presented is whether the Court of Appeals committee grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the petition for certiorari and denied the motion for reconsideration based on a technicality and error in the affidavit of non-forum shopping.

We find the petition impressed with merit.

The Court of Appeals paid obedience to the technical requirements of the rules of civil procedure rather than substantial justice. We have held in several cases that "the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, rules on procedure are used only to secure, not override substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated."12 [Salazar v. NLRC, 256 SCRA 273, 282 (1996) citing American Home Insurance Co. v. Court of Appeals, 109 SCRA 180; Cf. Visayan v. NLRC, 196 SCRA 410, 420 (1991)] Also "dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the courts is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense."13 [Supra, Visayan v. NLRC.]

"There is grave abuse of discretion when a court, board, tribunal official acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction."14 [Singa Ship Management Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, 288 SCRA 692 (1998); Esguera v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 380 (1997); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 200 (1996)] The Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition based solely on technicality.

Another issue worthy of discussion is whether the trial court has jurisdiction to order the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title in the case below. The Court has held in New Durawood Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals15 [253 SCRA 740, 747 (1996)] citing Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals,16 [195 SCRA 482 (1991); Alipoon v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 118, 125 (1999); Demetriou v. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 158 (1994)] that "if the certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction."

The applicable law in case of loss of new owner's duplicate certificate of title is Section 109, Presidential Decree No. 1529, which provides that:

In light of the foregoing, what Arsenio Reyes, Sr. should have done was to file a petition before the Regional Trial Court as a land registration court in the same proceedings as the titles involved, under Section 109 of P.D. No.1508 to compel petitioner to surrender the certificates of title to the Register of Deeds.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we grant the petition. We SET ASIDE the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 23, 1998 and November 20, 1998, in CA-G. R. SP No. 48977, and NULLIFY the orders of the trial court in Civil Case No. 97-81388.

No costs.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.