HIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 194499, January 14, 2015

MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 seeking the reversal of the Decision2 dated August
12, 2010 and the Resolution3 dated November 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No.
32096. The CA affirmed in toto the Decision4 dated August 29, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pasig City, Branch 70, finding petitioner Manuel R. Portuguez (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 5
The case stemmed from the Information6 dated April 21, 2003, charging petitioner of the crime of
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for illegal possession of five centigrams (0.05 gram) of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, the accusatory portion of which reads:
On or about April 16, 2003, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing five centigrams (0.05 gram) of white crystalline substance, which
was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in
violation of the said law.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Contrary to law.
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. 7 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated, among others, on the due
execution and genuineness of the Request for Laboratory Examination 8 dated April 16, 2003 and
Chemistry Report No. D-687-03E9 issued by the Forensic Chemist, Police Senior Inspector Annalee R.
Forro (P/Sr. Insp. Forro). The parties also stipulated on the existence of the plastic sachet including its
contents which had been the subject of the said Request except for its source or origin. 10 After entering
into the aforementioned stipulations, the testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Forro was dispensed with. 11
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution, through the testimonies of Police Officer 1 (PO1) Aldrin R. Mariano (PO1 Mariano) and
PO1 Janet Sabo (PO1 Sabo), established the following:
On April 16, 2003, a confidential asset went to the Pasig City Police Station, City Hall Detachment, to
report the illegal drug activities of a certain alias Bobot at Balmores Street, Barangay Kapasigan, Pasig
City. Upon receipt of the information, the chief of said station formed a buy-bust team wherein PO1
Mariano was designated as the poseur-buyer. After coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) and preparing the buy-bust money, the team and its asset proceeded to Balmores
Street. Arriving thereat, the asset pointed to Bobot as the target person. PO1 Mariano saw Bobot and
petitioner transacting illegal drugs. When PO1 Mariano and the asset met petitioner and Bobot on the
road, the asset asked petitioner, Pre, meron pa ba? At this point, petitioner looked at PO1 Mariano and
thereafter, attempted to run. However, PO1 Mariano was able to take hold of him. Then, the other police
operatives arrived. Petitioner was asked to open his hand. Upon seeing the suspected shabu on his
hand, they arrested petitioner, informed him of his constitutional rights and boarded him on their service
vehicle. Before leaving the area, PO1 Mariano placed the markings EXH A ARM 04-16-03 on the
seized shabu. Thereafter, the police operatives brought petitioner to the Rizal Medical Center for physical
examination before they proceeded to the police station for investigation. 12
On cross-examination, PO1 Mariano testified that at a distance of seven to eight meters, he saw Bobot
handing something to petitioner. PO1 Mariano said that the intended buy-bust operation failed because
of the commotion petitioner caused when he tried to run away. PO1 Mariano also testified that he got
hold of petitioner because he was nearer to him. He claimed that the other police operatives ran after
Bobot but they failed to arrest him.13
In addition, prosecution witness PO1 Sabo testified that on the same day of April 16, 2003, she delivered

the seized shabu and the Request for Laboratory Examination14 to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis.15 Chemistry Report No. D-687-03E16 prepared by P/Sr. Insp.
Forro revealed the following results:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
chanroble svirtuallawlibrary

A One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings EXH A ARM 04/16/03 containing
0.05 gram of white crystalline substance.
xxxx
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
xxxx
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A contains Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Version of the Defense
Petitioner testified that at the time of his arrest, he was fixing the katam and was eating infront of his
house with his friends Jonjon Reynoso, Jonjing Reynoso and Junior Da Silva. Two persons from the Pasig
Police headquarters arrived and spoke to his sister who used to work at the said headquarters. When his
sister called him, he was mistaken to be Bobot and thus, they arrested him. Petitioner denied that he
was in possession of the shabu allegedly seized from him. He claimed that he saw the said shabu for the
first time at the headquarters. Petitioner also claimed that at the time he was arrested on April 16, 2003,
Bobot was actually detained at a jail in Bicutan.17
On cross-examination, petitioner admitted that his sister was a former errand girl at the police
headquarters. He divulged that at the time of his arrest, while he was then repairing a katam, two
male persons whom petitioner identified as Efren and Dennis approached his sister. Efren told petitioner
that the target person of the police officers was Bobot. Petitioner claimed that PO1 Mariano and PO1
Sabo arrived a few minutes thereafter and he was arrested in the presence of his sister, Efren and
Dennis. Petitioner also claimed that the target person Bobot is his younger brother, Jovito Portuguez. He
admitted that Bobot was admitted to a rehabilitation center in Bicutan since he used to sell illegal drugs.
He maintained that the police officers already had with them the sachet of shabuwhen they arrested
him.18
Dawn Portuguez, daughter of petitioner, testified that in the afternoon of April 16, 2003, two male
persons arrived at the house of her aunt and asked for her father. She testified that petitioner was then
sleeping in the nearby house of his friend, Junior. She then called for her father and, upon their return,
four persons, one of whom was in police uniform, approached them and arrested petitioner. She
informed her mother of what happened and the latter proceeded to the headquarters where petitioner
was brought.19
Last to testify for the defense was Maritess Portuguez, petitioners sister. She testified that her brother
was then sleeping in a nearby house when apprehended by the police officers. She averred that after her
brother was arrested, they agreed not to file a complaint against the said police officers. On crossexamination, she said that she heard her niece shouting. Sensing a commotion, she hurried infront of
their house and there she saw the police officers accosting her brother.20
The RTCs Ruling
On August 29, 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision21 finding petitioner guilty as charged. The RTC invoked
the principle of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, gave credence to the
testimony of PO1 Mariano, and rejected the self-serving testimony of petitioner and the obviously
manufactured testimonies of his witnesses. The fallo of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused MANUEL PORTUGUEZ is hereby foundGUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 and is hereby
sentenced to Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day toTwenty (20) Years and to pay a FINE of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
chanroble svirtuallawlibrary

Pursuant to Section 21 of Republic Act 9165, any authorized representative of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) is hereby ordered to take charge and have custody over the plastic sachet

of shabu, object of this case, for proper disposition.

Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED.22
The CAs Ruling
On August 12, 2010, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA held that petitioner was deemed to
have waived his right to question the irregularity of his arrest since he failed to move to quash the
Information on this ground and instead, elected to proceed with the trial. The CA also held that
petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto when he was arrested by the police officers as PO1 Mariano
saw him buying illegal drugs from Bobot. The CA agreed with the RTC that the police officers were
presumed to have regularly performed their official duties. The CA opined that the integrity of the
seized shabu had been preserved by the concerned police officers.
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration23 was denied by the CA in its Resolution24 dated November 9,
2010. The CA held that the lack of inventory or photographs taken after petitioners apprehension does
not render the evidence inadmissible. The CA stressed that the integrity of the evidence taken from
petitioner was duly preserved.
Hence, this petition raising the sole assignment of error that the CA erred in affirming the conviction of
petitioner by the RTC.
Petitioner avers that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti, as well as the
regularity of the chain of custody. He submits that the testimony of PO1 Sabo was insufficient to
establish the identity of the shabu seized and the regularity of the chain of custody. Petitioner opines
that the failure of the police officers to observe the proper procedure, such as the lack of physical
inventory and the non-taking of photographs, for the custody of the allegedly confiscated drug
compromised its integrity. Moreover, petitioner posits that the prosecution failed to establish a valid buybust operation as there was no pre-operation report and coordination report filed with the PDEA. Finally,
petitioner argues that, assuming that the alleged shabu was recovered from him, the same is
inadmissible in evidence for being a fruit of the poisonous tree. Petitioner prays that he be acquitted. 25
On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) asserts that the totality of the evidence presented in this case clearly indicates that: (1) the sale
of a prohibited drug had taken place; (2) petitioner was caught in the act of buying the prohibited drug;
(3) petitioner was immediately arrested by the police officers upon consummation of the sale; and (4)
the police officers found in petitioners possession a prohibited drug, which was later confirmed through
the chemistry examination as shabu. Moreover, the OSG argues that non-compliance with the procedure
laid down in R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) does not render void and
invalid the seizure of dangerous drugs, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officers, as in this case. Lastly, the OSG relies on the CAs
ruling on the legality of petitioners arrest and the admissibility of the confiscated evidence. 26
Our Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.
The essential elements in illegal possession of dangerous drugs are (1) the accused is in possession of
an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law;
and (3) the accused freely and consciously possess the said drug. 27
This Court holds that all the aforementioned essential elements in illegal possession of dangerous drugs
were proven in this case.
A close look at the sequence of events narrated by the prosecution witnesses particularly by PO1
Mariano indicates that an intended buy-bust operation was about to be carried out against Bobot. Said
operation was not successful as no sale took place between the intended poseur-buyer, PO1 Mariano,
and Bobot. Bobot was also able to evade arrest.
Nonetheless, PO1 Mariano and the asset chanced upon an ongoing transaction between petitioner and
Bobot. It bears stressing that petitioner was particularly identified by PO1 Mariano as the person who
bought the suspected sachet of shabu from Bobot. When petitioner attempted to run, PO1 Mariano was
able to grab him. And when petitioner was asked to open his hand, 28 found in his possession was the
same sachet that he bought from Bobot. Through chemical analysis, the contents of the same sachet
were found to be shabu.

The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the
presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers performance of official duty. It is a settled rule
that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses
who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
unless there is evidence to the contrary.29 However, petitioner failed to present clear and convincing
evidence to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. Except
for his bare allegations of denial and frame-up, and that the police officers had mistakenly identified him
as Bobot, his younger brother, nothing supports his claim that the police officers were impelled by
improper motives to testify against him. Needless to stress, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to
be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been
tampered with.30 On petitioners claim that at the time of his arrest, Bobot was actually confined in a
rehabilitation center in Bicutan,31 we note that petitioner failed to fulfill his promise 32 to prove it as fact.
Likewise, this Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such
defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and
possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and
convincing evidence.33
Moreover, it bears stressing that in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis--visthose
of the defense, the RTC gave more credence to the version of the prosecution. This Court finds no
reason to disagree. Well-settled is the rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not
be disturbed on appeal.34 The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the
credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of
testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are
sustained by the CA as in this case.35
Lastly, petitioner claims that there were no inventory and photographs of the prohibited item allegedly
seized from him. He argues that as a result of this failure, there is doubt as to the identity and integrity
of the drugs, and there was a break in the chain of custody of the evidence.
The argument does not hold water.
Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
chanroble svirtuallawlibrary

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items[.] (Emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing, this Court has held that non-compliance with the above-mentioned
requirements is not fatal. Non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR does not make the items seized
inadmissible. What is imperative is the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the
seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.36
In this case, the chain of custody was established through the following link: (1) PO1 Mariano marked
the seized sachet subject of the in flagrante delicto arrest with EXH A ARM 04-16-03 which stands for
his full name, Aldrin Reyes Mariano;37 (2) a request for laboratory examination of the seized item was
signed by P/Sr. Insp. Rodrigo E. Villaruel;38 (3) the request and the marked item seized were personally
delivered by PO1 Sabo and received by the PNP Crime Laboratory on the same day of the arrest on April
16, 2003; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-687-03E39 confirmed that the marked item seized from petitioner

was methamphetamine hydrochloride; and (5) the marked item was duly identified by PO1 Mariano in
court and offered in evidence.
Hence, it is clear that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. This
Court, therefore, finds no reason to overturn the findings of the RTC that the drugs seized from
petitioner were the same ones presented during trial. Accordingly, we hold that the chain of custody of
the illicit drugs seized from petitioner remains unbroken, contrary to the assertions of petitioner.
In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the RTC and CA in convicting petitioner of illegal
possession of drugs. It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial
court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with
arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.40 This case is no exception to the rule. All told, this Court
thus sustains the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 12, 2010 and the Resolution dated
November 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32096 are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 187892, January 14, 2015
UNGAY MALOBAGO MINES, INC. Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision1 dated January 21, 2009 and the
Resolution2 dated May 7, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 88210.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On April 16, 2004, petitioner Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc. filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Legaspi City, a verified petition3 seeking the reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4784
of the Cadastral Survey of Albay, pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act (RA) 264 and Presidential
Decree (PD) No. 1529.5 The case was docketed as LRA Case No. RT-2720 and raffled off to Branch 4. In
its petition, petitioner alleged: that it is the registered owner of a mining patent covered by OCT No.
4784 which was issued by then President Diosdado Macapagal on July 20, 1962 and entered in the
Registry of Deeds of the Province of Albay on September 4, 1962; that sometime in April 2004, it
requested for a certified true copy of OCT No. VH-4784 from the Register of Deeds of Albay, but despite
a diligent search, the said copy could not be located by the said office leading one to believe that the
same was permanently lost or destroyed; that the property was free from all liens and encumbrances of
any kind whatsoever and there existed no deeds or instruments affecting the same which had been
presented for or pending registration with the Register of Deeds of Albay; and that the owner's duplicate
of OCT No. VH-4784 which would serve as a basis for the reconstitution, was attached thereto.
During the initial hearing, petitioner, through counsel, showed compliance with the jurisdictional
requirements. Trial thereafter ensued. The Republic opposed the petition.
On July 17, 2006, the RTC rendered its decision6 dismissing the petition.
The RTC found that there was no factual and legal basis to warrant the reconstitution of petitioner's
alleged lost certificate of title. It found that while petitioner submitted a purported owner's duplicate of
OCT No. VH-4784, the same was not signed by then Register of Deeds, Ramon Balana, both on the face
and the dorsal side thereof; that the owner's duplicate certificate being an original duplicate, should
contain the original signature of the Register of Deeds just like the original certificate which should have
been on file with the Register of Deeds; that even if the said duplicate had the documentary seal of the

office, it was considered a scrap of paper without any probative value since the Register of Deeds as
an ex-officio mining recorder has no signature authenticating said duplicate; and to rule otherwise would
make the signature of the Register of Deeds a useless dispensable ceremony in a Torrens title which
would open the floodgates to fraud which would destroy the registration system. The RTC further ruled
that since petitioner is not the owner of the surface land which had already been titled to Rapu Rapu
Minerals, Inc. and petitioner is claiming only the minerals underneath, it is not entitled to the certificate
of title over its mining patent.
Petitioner filed its appeal with the CA. After the parties had filed their respective pleadings, the case was
then submitted for decision.
On January 21, 2009, the CA issued its assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the 17 July 2006 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi
City (Branch 4) in LRA Case No. RT-2720 dismissing the petition of Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc. for the
reconstitution of OCT No. VH-4784 is AFFIRMED.7
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In so ruling, the CA found that since petitioner is not the registered owner of the land covered by OCT
No. VH-4784 and citing our earlier ruling in Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc v. Intermediate Appellate Court
(IAC)8 where we declared that as a grantee of a mining patent, petitioner did not become the owner of
the land where the minerals are located, hence, it has no personality to file for the reconstitution of lost
or destroyed certificate of title. The CA ruled that petitioner's mining patent did not qualify as an interest
in property as contemplated by RA No. 26 so as to give petitioner the authority under the law to initiate
a petition for the reconstitution of said OCT. The CA affirmed the RTC's findings that the owner's
duplicate of OCT No. VH-4784 presented by petitioner was insufficient to serve as a basis for the
reconstitution of the original of said OCT because of the absence of the signature of the Register of
Deeds.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution dated May 7, 2009.
Petitioner is now before us raising the following issues:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF RECONSTITUTION,
ERRED IN ITS APPRECIATION OF THE SUBJECT OF RECONSTITUTION WHICH IS PETITIONER'S
MINING PATENT OR RIGHT TO EXPLORE AND EXTRACT MINERALS WITHIN THE LAND DESCRIBED IN
THE TITLE THE TITLE ITSELF (OCT) SERVING MERELY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF REGISTRATION AS THIS
WAS THE PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION OF MINING PATENTS AT THE TIME.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHETHER OR NOT THE ABSENCE OF THE SIGNATURE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS IN THE ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE REGISTERING THE MINING PATENT EVEN IF DUE ONLY TO OBVIOUS
INADVERTENCE AND ABSENT ANY FRAUD HAS THE EFFECT OF RENDERING THE ENTIRE INSTRUMENT
VOID, INCLUDING THE GRANT OF MINING PATENT ITSELF CONTAINED THEREIN, AS TO PREVENT
RECONSTITUTION OF THE SAME.9
Anent the first issue, petitioner claims that the CA erred in categorizing the reconstitution in this case as
reconstitution of ownership of the property itself (surface ownership), when in law and in fact, it is really
a reconstitution of evidence of the grant by the state in favor of petitioner of the right to explore and
extract mineral deposits within the area described in the original certificate of title; that the concept and
nature of the right to explore and mine a piece of land (referred to as mining patent) is separate and
distinct from right and title of ownership over the property itself and are not inconsistent to and
exclusive of each other.
The Torrens title is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein, and
other matters which can be litigated and decided in land registration proceedings. 10 When the Torrens
Certificate of Title has been lost or destroyed, RA No. 26 provides for a special procedure for the
reconstitution of such title. Sections 5 and 10 of RA No. 26 state:
Section 5. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and/or
4(a) of this Act may be filed with the register of deeds concerned by the registered owner, his assigns,
or other person having an interest in the property. The petition shall be accompanied with the necessary
sources for reconstitution and with an affidavit of the registered owner stating, among other things, that
no deed or other instrument affecting the property had been presented for registration, or, if there be
any, the nature thereof, the date of its presentation, as well as the names of the parties, and whatever
the registration of such deed or instrument is still pending accomplishment. If the reconstitution is to be
made from any of the sources enumerated in section 2(b) or 3(b), the affidavit should further state that
the owner's duplicate has been lost or destroyed and the circumstances under which it was lost or
destroyed. Thereupon, the register of deeds shall, no valid reason to the contrary existing, reconstitute
the certificate of title as provided in this Act.
chanroble svirtuallawlibrary

Section 10. Nothing hereinbefore provided shall prevent any registered owner or person in interest from
filing the petition mentioned in section five of this Act directly with the proper Court of First Instance,

based on sources enumerated in sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and/or 4(a) of this Act: Provided,
however, That the court shall cause a notice of the petition, before hearing and granting the same, to be
published in the manner stated in section nine hereof: And provided, further, That certificates of title
reconstituted pursuant to this section shall not be subject to the encumbrance referred to in section
seven of this Act.
Thus, the persons who can file the petition for reconstitution of a lost certificate are the registered
owner, his assigns or persons in interest in the property. In this case, petitioner admitted that it was not
the owner of the land on which the mining patent was issued as the same was owned and registered in
the name of Rapu Rapu Minerals Inc. Thus said petitioner's witness, Atty. Cela Magdalen A. Agpaoa, to
wit:
Q. Can you tell the [H]on. Court where is this mining patent situated or located, if you know?
A. This mining patent covers several parcels of land situated in the various barangays in Rapu Rapu,
more concentrated in [B]arangay Pagcolbon, Rapu Rapu, Albay.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Q. You want to tell the [H]on. Court that this mining patent cannot be seen on the surface? Is that what
you want to tell the [H]on. Court, Madam Witness?
A. That is right, because this mining patent is a right over minerals found beneath the surface.
Q. I see. I'm showing to you again the Report made by the Land Registration Authority which forms part
of the records which is now marked as Exhs J and J-1 consisting of two (2) pages. A copy of which
was sent to Atty. Cela Magdalen A. Agpaoa, collaborating counsel.
My question to you is this, are you this Atty. Cela Magdalen Agpaoa, the collaborating counsel?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Did you receive a copy of this report?
A. Yes, I do (sic).
Q. Did you read the contents of this report?
A. Yes, I do (sic).
Q. I am inviting your attention to this Exh. J, par. (2) of the technical description of the parcel of land
described on Plan LP- 714-A inscribed on the certified xerox copy of the Original Certificate of Title No.
VH-4784 appears to overlap Lot Nos. 984, 985, 986 1007, 1008, 1009, 1014, Pls-858-B, of the Rapu
Rapu Public Land Subdivision.
My question to you is this, are you aware of these lots mentioned in this report?
A. Yes, I am sir.
Q. Why? Can you tell the [H]on. court why you are aware of all these lots, which this mining patent
appears to overlap all these lots, which I mentioned?
A. The various parcels of land mentioned in VH No. 4784 are actually surface lands, actual parcels of
land which have already been acquired by the petitioner's activated (sic) corporation for purposes of
consolidating the surface rights and the mining rights, referred to in VH No. 4784.
Q. Now, another question, you said that these lots mentioned here are the surface lots, am I correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell the [H]on. Court since these are surface lots, do you know who owns now all these lots you
mentioned in this report, madam witness?
A. Yes sir, I do.
Q. Tell the [H]on. Court who is now the owner of these lots?
A. It is now owned by the petitioner's affiliated company, the Rapu Rapu Minerals, Incorporated.
Q. Do you know also this Rapu Rapu Minerals, Incorporated?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Why do you know this corporation, Madam Witness?
A. I am also their legal counsel, sir.
Q. Have you seen these surface lots which are mentioned in this report?
A. Yes, I did sir.
Q. Why, for how many times have you seen these lots mentioned in this report, madam witness?
A. I started actually going to these particular parcels of land when I personally negotiated the sale
between the original owners and the company which I represented, the Rapu Rapu Minerals,
Incorporated, as far as in 2002, sir.

Q. You want to tell the [H]on. court that you have seen these lots mentioned in this report personally?
A. Yes, sir. I go to the island in Rapu Rapu and during the negotiation time we met with the original
owners, and I personally inspect and take a look at that particular parcels of land covered by the mining
patent.
xxxx
Q. Can you tell the court who is the President of this Rapu Rapu Minerals, Incorporated, Madam Witness?
A. The current duly-elected President of Rapu Rapu Minerals, Incorporated is Mr. Roderick R.C. Salazar
III.
Q. Do you know also the president of Ungay Malobago Mines, Incorporated?
A. Yes, I do sir.
Q. Who is the president, if you know?
A. It is also Mr. Roderick R.C. Salazar III, sir.
Q. As far as you know, what is now the status of these several lots you mentioned in this report?
A. They are now registered under the name of Rapu Rapu Minerals, Inc. and presently being used for
mining purpose.
Q. What do you mean that it is now registered in the name of Rapu Rapu Minerals, Inc.?
A. These surface lands are now owned by this corporation called Rapu Rapu Minerals, Inc., an affiliated
company of Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc.
Q. Do you know if these lots mentioned in this report are already titled properties?
A. Yes, these are titled properties.11
In Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc. v. IAC,12 herein petitioner filed a complaint for annulment and
cancellation of free patents against private respondents therein. Petitioner was claiming ownership over
the surface land subject matter of its mining patents which also included Lode Patent No. V-46 covered
by OCT No. VH-4784, the title sought to be reconstituted in this case. Petitioner did so as the Director of
Lands had issued free patents on portions of the lots covered by petitioner's mining patent. We ruled in
favor of private respondents. We found that the issuance of the lode patents on mineral claims by the
President of the Philippines in 1962 in favor of the petitioner granted to it only the right to extract or
utilize the minerals which may be found on or under the surface of the land. On the other hand, the
issuance of the free patents by the respondent Director of Lands in 1979 in favor of the private
respondents granted to them the ownership and the right to use the land for agricultural purposes but
excluding the ownership of, and the right to extract or utilize, the minerals which may be found on or
under the surface.
The above-cited case, as well as petitioner's admission in this case, established that the surface land
covered by its mining patent under OCT No. VH-4784, which title is sought to be reconstituted, is not
owned by petitioner. Thus, not having an interest on the land amounting to a title to the same, petitioner
is not possessed of a legal personality to institute a petition for judicial reconstitution of the alleged lost
OCT No. VH-4785.
Petitioner contends that Section 11 of RA No. 26 includes persons who are not the registered owners but
who have registered interest in the property covered by the Torrens title which was lost or destroyed
who can file a petition for reconstitution of title, to wit:
Section 11. Petitions for reconstitution of registered interests, liens and other encumbrances, based on
sources enumerated in sections 4(b) and/or 4(c) of this Act, shall be filed, by the interested party, with
the proper Court of First Instance. The petition shall be accompanied with the necessary documents and
shall state, among other things, the number of the certificate of title and the nature as well as a
description of the interest, lien or encumbrance which is to be reconstituted, and the court, after
publication, in the manner stated in section nine of this Act, and hearing shall determine the merits of
the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require.
chanroble svirtuallawlibrary

A petition for judicial reconstitution of a registered interest, lien or encumbrance, may be filed only when
the certificate of title affected has not been totally destroyed, that is, when said certificate of title is
composed of more than one sheet and only the portion of the additional sheet, on which such interest,
lien or encumbrance was noted is missing.13 The reconstitution in this case does not only refer to a
registered interest which was noted on an additional sheet of a certificate of title but the reconstitution
of a lost certificate. Therefore, petitioner's reliance on Section 11 to support its claim that it can file for
the reconstitution of OCT No. VH-4784 is misplaced.
Petitioner argues that what it actually sought is the reconstitution of evidence of the grant by the State

in favor of petitioner of the right to explore and extract mineral deposits within the area described in the
original certificate of title. Petitioner's filing of the reconstitution for that purpose is not within the
purview of RA No. 26 which deals with lost or destroyed certificates attesting title to a piece of land.
Based on our above discussion, we find no need to discuss petitioner's second assignment of error.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The Decision dated January 21, 2009 and the
Resolution dated May 7, 2009 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.