You are on page 1of 31

AN ACT PROVIDING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF

TORRENS CERTIFICATES OF TITLE LOST OR DESTROYED

Section 1. Certificates of title lost or destroyed shall be reconstituted in


accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Section 2. Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the


sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:

(a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certificate of title;

(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of
deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;

(d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may
be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued;

(e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the
description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or
encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original
had been registered; and

(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper
basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

Section 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the


sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:

(a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certificate of title;

(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of
deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;

(d) The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the registry of deeds,
containing the description of the property, or an authenticated copy thereof,
showing that its original had been registered, and pursuant to which the lost or
destroyed transfer certificate of title was issued;

(e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the
description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or
encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original
had been registered; and

(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper
basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

Section 4. Liens and other encumbrances affecting a destroyed or lost certificate


of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as
may be available, in the following order:

(a) Annotations or memoranda appearing on the owner's co-owner's mortgagee's


or lessee's duplicate;

(b) Registered documents on file in the registry of deeds, or authenticated copies


thereof showing that the originals thereof had been registered; and

(c) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and
proper basis for reconstituting the liens or encumbrances affecting the property
covered by the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

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.

Section 6. The register of deeds may motu propio reconstitute a certificate of title
from its corresponding owner's duplicate, and, for this purpose, may compel the
registered owner, or any person holding such owner's duplicate, to surrender the
same to the registry of deeds. After the reconstitution said owner's duplicate shall
be returned to the person concerned.

Section 7. Reconstituted certificates of title shall have the same validity and legal
effect as the originals thereof: Provided, however, That certificates of title
reconstituted extrajudicially, in the manner stated in sections five and six hereof,
shall be without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was
duly noted in the original, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but entry or notation
of which has not been made on the reconstituted certificate of title. This
reservation shall be noted as an encumbrance on the reconstituted certificate of
title.

Section 8. Any person whose right or interest was duly noted in the original of a
certificate of title, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but does not appear so
noted on the reconstituted certificate of title, which is subject to the reservation
provided in the preceding section, may, while such reservation subsists, file a
petition with the proper Court of First Instance for the annotation of such right or
interest on said reconstituted certificate of title, and the court, after notice and
hearing, shall determine the merits of the petition and render such judgment as
justice and equity may require. The petition shall state the number of the
reconstituted certificate of title and the nature, as well as a description, of the right
or interest claimed.

Section 9. A registered owner desiring to have his reconstituted certificate of title


freed from the encumbrance mentioned in section seven of this Act, may file a
petition to that end with the proper Court of First Instance, giving his reason or
reasons therefor. A similar petition may, likewise, be filed by a mortgagee, lessees
or other lien holder whose interest is annotated in the reconstituted certificate of
title. Thereupon, the court shall cause a notice of the petition to be published, at
the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette,
and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the
municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land lies, at least thirty
days prior to the date of hearing, and after hearing, shall determine the petition
and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. The notice shall
specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title, the name of the
registered owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in the
reconstituted certificate of title, the location of the property, and the date on which
all persons having an interest in the property must appear and file such claim as
they may have. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication
and posting of the notice: Provided, however, That after the expiration of two years
from the date of the reconstitution of a certificate of title, if no petition has been
filed within that period under the preceding section, the court shall, on motion ex
parte by the registered owner or other person having registered interest in the
reconstituted certificate of title, order the register of deeds to cancel, proper
annotation, the encumbrance mentioned in section seven hereof.

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.

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.

Section 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in sections 2(c),
2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper
Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having
an interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain, among other things,
the following: (a) that the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost
or destroyed; (b) that no co-owner's mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate had been
issued, or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed; (c) the
location, area and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and description of the
buildings or improvements, if any, which do not belong to the owner of the land,

and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements; (e)
the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the
property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and all persons who may have
any interest in the property; (f) a detailed description of the encumbrances, if any,
affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments
affecting the property have been presented for registration, or, if there be any, the
registration thereof has not been accomplished, as yet. All the documents, or
authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in support of the
petition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with the same:
Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources
enumerated in section 2(f) of 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further be
accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved
by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or with a certified copy of the
description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property.

Section 13. The court shall cause a notice of the petition, filed under the
preceding section, to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in
successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of
the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in
which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. The
court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail or
otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein whose
address is known, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Said notice shall
state, among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, if
known, the name of the registered owner, the names of the occupants or persons
in possession of the property, the owners of the adjoining properties and all other
interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the property, and the date
on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their claim or
objections to the petition. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the
publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the court.

Section 14. If any person withholds, refuses or fails within a reasonable time after
request, to produce a document or paper without which the reconstitution of a
certificate of title, or any lien or annotation affecting the same, cannot be fully
accomplished, the court may, on motion and after notice and hearing order such
person to produce and/or surrender such document or paper at the time and place
named in the order and may enforce the same by suitable process.

Section 15. If the court, after hearing, finds that the documents presented, as
supported by parole evidence or otherwise, are sufficient and proper to warrant the
reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, and that the petitioner is
the registered owner of the property or has an interest therein, that the said
certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed, and that the
description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as
those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title, an order of
reconstitution shall be issued. The clerk of court shall forward to the register of
deeds a certified copy of said order and all the documents which, pursuant to said
order, are to be used as the basis of the reconstitution. If the court finds that there
is no sufficient evidence or basis to justify the reconstitution, the petition shall be
dismissed, but such dismissal shall not preclude the right of the party or parties
entitled thereto to file an application for confirmation of his or their title under the
provisions of the Land Registration Act.

Section 16. After the reconstitution of a certificate of title under the provisions of
this Act, the register of deeds shall issue the corresponding owner's duplicate and
the additional copies of said certificates of title, if any had been previously issued,
where such owner's duplicate and/or additional copies have been destroyed or lost.
This fact shall be noted on the reconstituted certificate of title.

Section 17. The register of deeds shall certify on each certificate of title
reconstituted the date of the reconstitution, the source or sources from which
reconstitution has been accomplished, and whether administratively or judicially.

Section 18. In case a certificate of title, considered lost or destroyed, be found or


recovered, the same shall prevail over the reconstituted certificate of title, and, if
both titles appear in the name of the same registered owner, all memoranda of
new liens or encumbrances, if any, made on the latter, after its reconstitution,
except the memorandum of the reservation referred to in section seven of this Act,
shall be transferred to the recovered certificate of title. Thereupon, the register of
deeds shall cancel the reconstituted certificate of title and spread upon the owner's
duplicate, as well as on the co-owner's, mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate, if any
has been issued, such annotations of subsisting liens or encumbrances as may
appear on the recovered certificate of title, cancelling at the same time the
memorandum of the reservation referred to in section seven hereof: Provided,
however, That if the reconstituted certificate of title has been cancelled by virtue
of any deed or instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, or by an order of the
court, and a new certificate of title has been issued, the recovered certificate of
title shall be likewise cancelled, but all subsisting liens or encumbrances, if any,
appearing thereon shall be transferred to the new certificate of title and to its
owner's duplicate, as well as to any co-owner's, mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate
that may have been issued, the memorandum of the reservation referred to in
section seven of this Act, if any, being thereby ipso facto cancelled.

Section 19. If the certificate of title considered lost or destroyed, and


subsequently found or recovered, is not in the name of the same person in whose
favor the reconstituted certificate of title has been issued, the register of deeds
should bring the matter to the attention of the proper Court of First Instance,
which, after due notice and hearing, shall order the cancellation of the
reconstituted certificate of title and render, with respect to the memoranda of new
liens or encumbrances, if any, made in the reconstituted certificate of title, after its
reconstitution, such judgment as justice and equity may require: Provided,
however, That, if the reconstituted certificate of title has been cancelled by virtue
of any deed or instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, or by an order of the
court, and a new certificate of title has been issued, the procedure prescribed
above, with respect to memoranda of new liens or encumbrances made on the
reconstituted certificate of title, after its reconstitution, shall be followed with
respect to the new certificate of title, and to such new liens or encumbrances, if
any, as may have been made on the latter after the issuance thereof.

Section 20. If the registered owner or any other person withholds, refuses or fails,
within a reasonable time after request, to produce the owner's duplicate or any
other duplicate of a certificate of title, for cancellation or annotation as provided in
sections eighteen and nineteen of this Act, the register of deeds shall report the
fact to the proper Court of First Instance and the court, after notice and hearing,
may order the person concerned to produce the duplicate in his possession at the
time and place named in the order, and may enforce the same by suitable process.

Section 21. In all cases where the reconstituted certificate of title does not
contain the full technical description of the land, except where such technical
description is contained, in a prior certificate of title which is available, the
registered owner shall, within two years from the date of the reconstitution, file a
plan of such land with the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, who, after
approving the same, shall furnish the register of deeds with a copy of the technical
description of said land for annotation on the proper certificate of title and file.
After the expiration of the period above prescribed, no transfer certificate of title
shall be issued in pursuance of any voluntary instrument until such plan and
technical description shall have been filed and noted as provided above.

Section 22. Every petition filed with the court under this Act shall be sworn to by
the petitioner or the person acting in his behalf and filed and entitled in the land
registration or cadastral case in which the decree of registration was entered. If the
petition relates to a certificate of title originally issued under the provisions of
section one hundred twenty-two of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six and
the property has been included in a cadastral survey, the petition shall be filed in
the corresponding cadastral case: Provided, however, That where the property has
not been included in a cadastral survey, or where the land registration or cadastral
case has been lost or destroyed and/or the number thereof cannot be identified,
the petition shall be filed in a special case to be entitled "Special proceedings for
reconstitution of lost certificate of title."

Section 23. No fees shall be charged for the filing of any petition under this Act,
nor for any service rendered, in connection therewith or in compliance with any
provision of this Act, by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, clerks of
Court of First Instance, sheriffs, and/or register of deeds. Any certified copy of
document or paper that may be necessary in the reconstitution of a certificate of
title under this Act shall, upon request of the court, register of deeds, or Chief of
the General Land Registration Office, be furnished free of charge, by any office or
branch of the Government, including Government controlled corporations,
institutions or instrumentalities.

Section 24. The Chief of the General Land Registration Office, with the approval of
the Secretary of Justice, shall issue rules, regulations, circulars and instructions,
and prescribe such books and blank form, as may be necessary to carry into effect
the provisions of this Act.

Section 25. Sections seventy-six, seventy-seven and eighty-nine of Act Numbered


Thirty-one hundred and ten are hereby declared inoperative, insofar as they
provide for the reconstitution of certificates of title.

Section 26. This Act shall take effect on its approval.

Approved: September 25, 1946

SECOND DIVISION

BIENVENIDO CASTILLO,

G.R. No. 182980

Petitioner,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

- versus -

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*
ABAD,
MENDOZA, and
SERENO,** JJ.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Promulgated:
Respondent.
June 22, 2011
x--------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Petitioner Bienvenido Castillo (Bienvenido) filed the present petition for review on
certiorari1 of the Decision2 dated 23 October 2007 as well as the Resolution 3 dated
7 May 2008 of the Court of Appeals (appellate court) in CA-G.R. CV No. 81916. The
appellate court reversed the Decision 4 dated 3 October 2003 of Branch 22,
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan (trial court) in P-111-2002. The trial court
ordered the reconstitution of the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. T-16755 as well as the issuance of another owners duplicate copy, in the name
of the registered owner and in the same terms and conditions as the original, in
lieu of the lost original copy.
The Facts
Bienvenido filed on 7 March 2002 a Petition for Reconstitution and Issuance of
Second Owners Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-16755. The petition reads
as follows:
1. That petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, widower and with residence and postal
address at Poblacion, Pulilan, Bulacan;
2. That petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated at Paltao,
Pulilan, Bulacan covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-16755, a zerox [sic]
copy of which is hereto attached as Annex A;
3. That the zerox [sic] copy of technical description and subdivision plan of the
parcel of land with an area of 50,199 [square meters] (Lot 6-A) are hereto attached
as Annexes B and C;
4. That the original copy of the said certificate of title on file with the Register of
Deeds of Bulacan was lost and/or destroyed during the fire on March 7, 1987 in the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan, certification from the said office is
hereto attached as Annex D;
5. That, the owners copy of the said certificate of title was likewise lost and all
efforts to locate the same proved futile and in vain, copy of the the [sic] Affidavit of
Loss is hereto attached as Annex E;
6. That no co-owners copy of duplicate of the same certificate has been issued;
7. The names and addresses of the boundary owners of said lot are the following:
a. West - Jorge Peralta
b. North - Lorenzo Calderon
c. South - Lorenzo Calderon
d. East - Melvin & Marlon Reyes
with postal address at Poblacion, Pulilan, Bulacan;
8. That said property has been declared for taxation purposes under Tax
Declaration No. 97-19001-00019, zerox [sic] copy of which is hereto attached as
Annex F;
9. That the real estate tax for the current year has been paid per official receipt no.
0287074, zerox [sic] copy of which is hereto attached as Annex G;
10. That said property is free from all liens and encumbrances;
11. That there exist no deeds or instruments affecting the said property which has
been presented for and pending registration with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan;
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after due
notice and hearing judgment be rendered:
1. Declaring the Original Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title No. T-16755 that was
lost as null and void;
2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Bulacan to issue second owners duplicate
copy of the said certificate of title upon payment of proper fees.5
The trial court furnished the Land Registration Authority (LRA) with a duplicate
copy of Bienvenidos petition and its Annexes, with a note stating that No Tracing
Cloth of Plan [sic] and Blue print of plan attached. 6 As requested by the LRA in its
letter dated 17 April 2002, 7 the trial court ordered Bienvenido to submit within 15
days from receipt of the order (a) the original of the technical description of the
parcel of land covered by the lost/destroyed certificate of title, certified by the
authorized officer of the Land Management Bureau/Land Registration Authority and
two duplicate copies thereof, and (b) the sepia film plan of the subject parcel of
land prepared by a duly licensed Geodetic Engineer, who shall certify thereon that
its preparation was made on the basis of a certified technical description, and two
blue print copies thereof.8 Bienvenido complied with the order. 9
The trial court, in an order dated 7 August 2002, ordered Bienvenido to supply the
names and addresses of the occupants of the subject property. 10 Bienvenido
manifested that there is no actual occupant in the subject property.11
On 4 October 2002, the trial court issued an order which found Bienvenidos
petition sufficient in form and substance and set the same for hearing.12
Copies of the 4 October 2002 order were posted on three bulletin boards: at the
Bulacan Provincial Capitol Building, at the Pulilan Municipal Building, and at the
Bulacan Regional Trial Court.13 The 4 October 2002 order was also published twice
in the Official Gazette: on 13 January 2003 (Volume 99, Number 2, Pages 237 to
238), and on 20 January 2003 (Volume 99, Number 3, Pages 414 to 415). 14 After
two cancellations,15 a hearing was conducted on 12 March 2003.
During the hearing, the following were marked in evidence for jurisdictional
requirements:
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit

A - Order of the Court dated 4 October 2002


A-1 - Second page of the Order of the Court dated 4 October 2002
A-2 - Third page of the Order of the Court dated 4 October 2002
A-3 - Registry return receipt of notice to the Office of the Solicitor General
A-4 - Registry return receipt of notice to the Land Registration Authority

Exhibit A-5 - Registry return receipt of notice to the Register of Deeds


Exhibit A-6 - Registry return receipt of notice to the Public Prosecutor
Exhibit A-7 - Registry return receipt of notice to boundary owner Jorge Peralta
Exhibit A-8 - Registry return receipt of notice to boundary owner Lorenzo Calderon
Exhibit A-9 - Registry return receipt of notice to boundary owners Melvin and
Marlon Reyes
Exhibit B - Certificate of Posting
Exhibit C - Certificate of Publication from the Director of the National Printing Office
Exhibit D - Official Gazette, Volume 99, Number 2, 13 January 2003
Exhibit D-1 - Page 237, Publication of the trial courts Order dated 4 October 2002
Exhibit D-2 - Page 238, Publication of the trial courts Order dated 4 October 2002
Exhibit E - Official Gazette, Volume 99, Number 3, 20 January 2003
Exhibit E-1 - Page 414, Publication of the trial courts Order dated 4 October 2002
Exhibit E-2 - Page 415, Publication of the trial courts Order dated 4 October 2002 16
Fernando Castillo (Fernando), Bienvenidos son and attorney-in-fact, testified on his
fathers behalf. During the course of his testimony, Fernando identified the
following:
Exhibit F - Photocopy of TCT No. T-16755
Exhibit G - Blueprint of the subject property
Exhibit H - Technical description of the property
Exhibit I - Affidavit of Loss executed by Bienvenido Castillo
Exhibit I-1 - Entry of the Affidavit of Loss in the book of the Register of Deeds
Exhibit J - Certification issued by the Office of the Register of Deeds, Malolos,
Bulacan that TCT No. T-16755 was burned in a fire on 7 March 1987
Exhibit K - Tax declaration
Exhibit L - 2002 Real Estate Tax Receipt
Upon presentation of the photocopy of TCT No. T-16755, Fernando stated that the
title was issued in the names of his parents, Bienvenido Castillo and Felisa Cruz
(Felisa), and that his mother died in 1982. Fernando did not mention any sibling.
Fernando further testified that on 6 February 2002, Bienvenido executed an
Affidavit of Loss which stated that he misplaced the owners copy of the certificate
of title sometime in April 1993 and that all efforts to locate the same proved futile.
The title is free from all liens and encumbrances, and there are no other persons
claiming interest over the land.17
The LRA submitted a Report dated 25 July 2003, portions of which the trial court
quoted in its Decision. The LRA stated that:
(2) The plan and technical description of Lot 6-A of the subdivision plan Psd-37482
were verified correct by this Authority to represent the aforesaid lot and the same
have been approved under (LRA) PR-03-00321-R pursuant to the provisions of
Section 12 of Republic Act No. 26.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing information anent the lot in question is respectfully
submitted for consideration in the resolution of the instant petition, and if the
Honorable Court, after notice and hearing, finds justification pursuant to Section 15
of Republic Act No. 26 to grant the same, the plan and technical description having
been approved, may be used as basis for the inscription of the technical
description on the reconstituted certificate. Provided, however, that in case the
petition is granted, the reconstituted title should be made subject to such
encumbrances as may be subsisting; and provided further, that no certificate of
title covering the same parcel of land exists in the office of the Register of Deeds
concerned.18
The Trial Courts Ruling
On 3 October 2003, the trial court promulgated its Decision in favor of Bienvenido.
The trial court found valid justifications to grant Bienvenidos petition as the same
is in order and meritorious.
The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the Register of Deeds for the province of Bulacan is hereby ordered,
upon payment of the prescribed fees, to reconstitute the original copy of Original
Certificate of Title No. 16755 and to issue another owners duplicate copy thereof,
in the name of the registered owner and in the same terms and conditions as the
original thereof, pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 26, as amended by P.D. No.
1529, in lieu of the lost original copy. The new original copy shall in all respects be
accorded the same validity and legal effect as the lost original copy for all intents
and purposes. Provided, that no certificate of title covering the same parcel of land
exists in the office of the Register of Deeds concerned.
SO ORDERED.19
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Notice of Appeal on 18 November
2003. The OSG stated that it was grave error for the trial court to order
reconstitution despite absence of any prayer seeking such relief in the petition and
on the basis of a mere photocopy of TCT No. T-16755. Counsel for Bienvenido filed
a motion for early resolution on 25 January 2006.
The Appellate Courts Ruling
On 23 October 2007, the appellate court rendered its Decision which reversed the
3 October 2003 Decision of the trial court. Bienvenidos counsel withdrew from the
case on 11 October 2007 and was substituted by Mondragon and Montoya Law
Offices.
The appellate court ruled that even if Bienvenido failed to specifically include a
prayer for the reconstitution of TCT No. T-16755, the petition is captioned as In re:
Petition for Reconstitution and Issuance of Second Owners Copy of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-16755, Bienvenido Castillo, Petitioner. The prayer for such
other reliefs and remedies just and proper under the premises is broad and
comprehensive enough to justify the extension of a remedy different from that
prayed for.
However, the appellate court still ruled that the trial court erred in ordering the
reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. T-16755 and the issuance of another
owners duplicate copy thereof in the name of the registered owner. Section 3 of

Republic Act No. 26 specified the order of sources from which transfer certificates
of title may be reconstituted, and Bienvenido failed to comply with the order.
Moreover, the documentary evidences presented before the trial court were
insufficient to support reconstitution. The loss of the original copy on file with the
Registry of Deeds of Bulacan may be credible, but Bienvenido failed to adequately
explain the circumstances which led to the loss of the owners copy. The tax
declaration presented is not a conclusive evidence of ownership, but merely
indicates possession. The plan and technical description of the property are merely
additional documents that must accompany the petition for the LRAs verification
and approval.
The dispositive portion of the appellate courts Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated October
3, 2003 of Branch 22, RTC of Malolos, Bulacan in P-111-2002 is hereby SET ASIDE
and a new judgment is entered dismissing the Petition therein.
SO ORDERED.20
On 3 December 2007, Bienvenidos counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration
and/or for New Trial.21 The motion asserted that Bienvenido presented sufficient
documents to warrant reconstitution of TCT No. T-16755. Aside from the photocopy
of TCT No. T-16755, Fernando presented the plan and technical description
approved by the LRA. Moreover, to support the Motion for New Trial, Fernando went
through Bienvenidos papers and found the Deed of Absolute Sale 22 from the
original owner, Elpidio Valencia, to spouses Bienvenido and Felisa. Fernando also
found the cancellation of mortgage 23 of the property covered by TCT No. T-16755
issued by the Development Bank of the Philippines. Fernando also submitted a
copy of the Extra-Judicial Partition 24 by and among the heirs of his mother. The
property covered by TCT No. T-16755 was partitioned among Bienvenido,
Fernando, and Fernandos siblings Emma Castillo Bajet (Emma) and Elpidio Castillo
(Elpidio).
In Fernandos affidavit attached to the Motion for Reconsideration and/or for New
Trial, Fernando stated, but without presenting any proof, that Bienvenido passed
away at the age of 91 on 14 February 2006.
The Republic, through the OSG, opposed the Motion for Reconsideration and/or for
New Trial. Bienvenidos petition failed to satisfy Section 3(f) of R.A. No. 26. The
Affidavit of Loss is hearsay because Bienvenido failed to affirm it in court.
Therefore, the loss of the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. T-16755 is not
established. The plan and technical description approved by the LRA are not
independent sources of reconstitution and are mere supporting documents. The
documents submitted in support of the Motion for New Trial are not newly
discovered, but could have been discovered earlier by exercise of due diligence.
In its Resolution25 dated 7 May 2008, the appellate court denied the Motion for
Reconsideration and/or for New Trial.
Issues
The following were assigned as errors of the appellate court:
I. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that the documentary evidence
presented by petitioner in the lower court are insufficient to support the
reconstitution prayed for.
II. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in finding that petitioner failed to establish
the circumstances which led to the loss of his duplicate owners copy of TCT No. T16755.
III. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in finding that there is no merit in the
motion for new trial filed by petitioner.26
The Courts Ruling
The petition must fail. There can be no reconstitution as the trial court never
acquired jurisdiction over the present case.
Process of Reconstitution of
Transfer Certificates of Title under R.A. No. 26
Section 3 of R.A. No. 26 enumerates the sources from which transfer certificates of
title shall be reconstituted. Section 3 reads:
Sec. 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources
hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
(a) The owners duplicate of the certificate of title;
(b) The co-owners, mortgagees, or lessees duplicate of the certificate of title;
(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of
deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
(d) The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the registry of deeds,
containing the description of the property, or an authenticated copy thereof,
showing that its original had been registered, and pursuant to which the lost or
destroyed transfer certificate of title was issued;
(e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the
description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased, or
encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original
had been registered; and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper
basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
Bienvenido already admitted that he cannot comply with Section 3(a) to 3(e), and
that 3(f) is his last recourse. Bienvenido, through Fernandos testimony, presented a
photocopy of TCT No. T-16755 before the trial court. The owners original duplicate
copy was lost, while the original title on file with the Register of Deeds of Malolos,
Bulacan was burned in a fire on 7 March 1987. The property was neither
mortgaged nor leased at the time of Bienvenidos loss of the owners original
duplicate copy.

Section 12 of R.A. No. 26 describes the requirements for a petition for


reconstitution. Section 12 reads:
Sec. 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in Sections 2(c), 2(d),
2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper Court of
First Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having an
interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain, among other things, the
following: (a) that the owners duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or
destroyed; (b) that no co-owners, mortgagees, or lessees duplicate had been
issued, or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed; (c) the
location and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and description of the
building or improvements, if any, which do not belong to the owner of the land,
and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements; (e)
the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the
property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and of all persons who may
have any interest in the property; (f) a detailed description of the encumbrances, if
any, affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments
affecting the property have been presented for registration, or if there be any, the
registration thereof has not been accomplished, as yet. All the documents, or
authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in support to the
petition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with the same:
Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources
enumerated in Section 2(f) or 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further
accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved
by the Chief of the General Land Registration office (now Commission of Land
Registration) or with a certified copy of the description taken from a prior
certificate of title covering the same property.
We compared the requirements of Section 12 to the allegations in Bienvenidos
petition. Bienvenidos petition complied with items (a), (b), (f) and (g): in paragraph
5 of the petition, he alleged the loss of his copy of TCT No. T-16755; paragraph 6
declared that no co-owners copy of the duplicate title has been issued; paragraph
10 stated that the property covered by the lost TCT is free from liens and
encumbrances; and paragraph 11 stated that there are no deeds or instruments
presented for or pending registration with the Register of Deeds. There was
substantial compliance as to item (c): the location of the property is mentioned in
paragraph 2; while the boundaries of the property, although not specified in the
petition, refer to an annex attached to the petition. The petition did not mention
anything pertaining to item (d). There was a failure to fully comply with item (e).
By Fernandos admission, there exist two other co-owners of the property covered
by TCT No. T-16755. Fernandos siblings Emma and Elpidio were not mentioned
anywhere in the petition.
Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 prescribes the requirements for a notice of hearing of the
petition:
Sec. 13. The court shall cause a notice of the petition, filed under the preceding
section, to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive
issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the
provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which
the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. The court shall
likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail or otherwise, at
the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein whose address is
known, at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. Said notice shall state,
among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, if
known, the name of the registered owner, the names of the occupants or persons
in possession of the property, the owners of the adjoining properties and all other
interested parties, the location area and boundaries of the property, and the date
on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their claim or
objections to the petition. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the
publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the court.
The trial courts 4 October 2002 Order was indeed posted in the places mentioned
in Section 13, and published twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette:
Volume 99, Number 2 dated 13 January 2003 and Volume 99, Number 3 dated 20
January 2003. The last issue was released by the National Printing Office on 21
January 2003.27 The notice, however, did not state Felisa as a registered co-owner.
Neither did the notice identify Fernandos siblings Emma and Elpidio as interested
parties.
The non-compliance with the requirements prescribed in Sections 12 and 13 of R.A.
No. 26 is fatal. Hence, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition
for reconstitution. We cannot stress enough that our jurisprudence is replete with
rulings regarding the mandatory character of the requirements of R.A. No. 26. As
early as 1982, we ruled:
Republic Act No. 26 entitled An act providing a special procedure for the
reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title lost or destroyed approved on
September 25, 1946 confers jurisdiction or authority to the Court of First Instance
to hear and decide petitions for judicial reconstitution. The Act specifically provides
the special requirements and mode of procedure that must be followed before the
court can properly act, assume and acquire jurisdiction or authority over the
petition and grant the reconstitution prayed for. These requirements and procedure
are mandatory. The Petition for Reconstitution must allege certain specific
jurisdictional facts; the notice of hearing must be published in the Official Gazette
and posted in particular places and the same sent or notified to specified persons.
Sections 12 and 13 of the Act provide specifically the mandatory requirements and
procedure to be followed.28
We cannot simply dismiss these defects as technical. Liberal construction of the
Rules of Court does not apply to land registration cases. 29 Indeed, to further
underscore the mandatory character of these jurisdictional requirements, the Rules
of Court do not apply to land registration cases. 30 In all cases where the authority
of the courts to proceed is conferred by a statute, and when the manner of
obtaining jurisdiction is prescribed by a statute, the mode of proceeding is
mandatory, and must be strictly complied with, or the proceeding will be utterly
void.31 When the trial court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it lacks
authority over the whole case and all its aspects.32 All the proceedings before the
trial court, including its order granting the petition for reconstitution, are void for
lack of jurisdiction.33

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 23 October


2007 and the Resolution dated 7 May 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 81916.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO


Associate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABAD JOSE C. MENDOZA


Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO


Associate Justice

Today is Thursday, November 17, 2016

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Republic
SUPREME

of

the

* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 1006 dated 10 June 2011.
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
** Designated additional member per Raffle dated 15 June 2011.
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Rollo, pp. 9-32.
CONCEPCION LORENZO, ORLANDO FONTANILLA, SAMUEL FONTANILLA, JULIET FONTANILLA, ELIZABETH FONTANILLA, ROSELA FONTANI
2 Rollo, pp. 34-38. Penned by Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe with Justices Portia
Alio- Hormachuelos and Lucas P. Bersamin, concurring.
3 Id. at 44-45.
4 Id. at 40-42.
Before the Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision 1 dated April 17, 2006 of the Court
5 Records, pp. 3-5.
"Concepcion Lorenzo, Orlando Fontanilla, Samuel Fontanilla, Juliet Fontanilla, Elizabeth Fontanilla. RosPln Fontanilla, Renato Fontanilla and Evelyn Fontan
6 Id. at 15.
dated August 26, 2003 in LRC Case No. 24-2692 of Branch 24, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Echague, Isabela.
7 Id. at 16.
The genesis of the present case can be traced back to the filing before the trial court on February 11, 2002 of a Petition 3 for the reconstitution of Original
8 Id. at 18.
parcel of land measuring 811 square meters, situated in Echague, Isabela.
9 Id. at 19-27.
In seeking the reconstitution of OCT No. 3980, respondents averred before the trial court:
10 Id. at 28.
3. That during the lifetime of Pedro Fontanilla and herein petitioner Concepcion Lorenzo, husband and wife, respectively, they acquired a parcel of residen
11 Id. at 32.
4. That subject parcel of land is identical to Lot 18 of Echague Cadastre 210, covered by and embraced under ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 3980 o
12 Id. at 34-36.
Antonia Pascua as her paraphernal property and being the mother of Pedro Fontanilla;
13 Id. at 39.
5. That because of the death of Pedro Fontanilla the lot as covered by the aforesaid title was settled and adjudicated among the herein petitioners, x x x;
14 Id. at 41-42.
6. That the OWNERS DUPLICATE COPY OF OCT NO. 3980 was handed and delivered unto the spouses Pedro Fontanilla and Concepcion Lorenzo whi
15 Id. at 46-48.
16 TSN, 12 March 2003, p. 2.
7. That the original and office file copy of said OCT NO. 3980 kept and to be on file in the Registry of Deeds of Isabela is not now available, utmost
17 Id. at 3-15.
recovery when the office was razed by fire sometime in 1976, a certification to this effect as issued by the office is hereto marked as ANNEX "D";
18 Records, p. 69.
8. That for taxation purposes, the lot as covered by OCT NO. 3980, still in the name of Antonia Pascua for Lot 18, Cad. 210, with an assessed value of P16
19 Rollo, p. 42.
9. That no mortgagees and/or lessees co-owners copy to the subject OCT NO. 3980 was ever issued, and likewise no related documents affecting the la
20 Rollo, p. 38.
for registration in favor of any person whomsoever, and henceforth, it is free from lien and encumbrance;
21 CA rollo, pp. 111-119.
22 Id. at 124-125.
11. That in support for the reconstitution of [OCT] No. 3980, the following documents which may constitute as source or basis for the purpose are herewit
23 Id. at 126.
24 Id. at 127-130.
(b) Certified technical description of Lot 18, Cad. 210 x x x;
25 Id. at 158-159.
(c) Certification by LRA as to the non-availability of a copy of DECREE NO. 650254 x x x[.] 4
26 Rollo, pp. 16-17.
During the trial, the testimony of co-respondent Evelyn Fontanilla- Gozum was offered in order to prove the above-mentioned allegations in the petition. I
27 Records, p. 41. Certified by Director IV Melanio S. Torio.
daughter of the late Pedro Fontanilla and co-respondent Concepcion Lorenzo who, during their marriage, acquired a parcel of land covered and embra
28 Tahanan Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 203 Phil. 652, 681 (1982).
Antonia Pascua as evidenced by a Deed of Sale. She also averred that the owners duplicate of the said Torrens certificate of title was later discovered
29 Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
original copy of the said Torrens certificate of title on file with the Register of Deeds of Isabela was certified to be burned and lost beyond recovery when t
30 Section 4, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
on December 4, 1976 as certified to by the Register of Deeds. Since both the original copy on file and the owners duplicate copy are non-existent, she a
31 Caltex Filipino Managers & Supervisors Assn. v. CIR, 131 Phil. 1022, 1030
in this case, instituted the petition for reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certificate of title. 5
(1968).
In its Decision dated August 26, 2003, the trial court granted respondents petition and directed the Register of Deeds of Isabela to reconstitute OCT No
32 Register of Deeds of Malabon v. RTC, Malabon, MM, Br. 170, G.R. No. 88623, 5
basis of the deed of sale, the technical description and the sketch plans, and to issue another owners duplicate copy of the said Torrens certificate of ti
February 1990, 181 SCRA 788, citing Pinza v. Aldovino, 134 Phil. 217 (1968).
33 Allama v. Republic, G.R. No. 88226, 26 February 1992, 206 SCRA 600.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the Register of Deeds of Isabela to reconstitute the original copy of OCT No.
basis of the deed of sale, the technical description and the sketch plans, and to issue another Owners Duplicate of the said title after payment of the nec
Furnish copy of this Order to the Land Registration Authority, The Register of Deeds of Isabela and the Office of the Solicitor General. 6
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals arguing that the trial cou
reconstitution of Torrens title since they failed to present substantial proof that the purported original certificate of title was valid and existing at the tim

they failed to present sufficient basis or source for reconstitution.


The Court of Appeals dismissed
We also
petitioners
find insufficient
appeal inthe
theindex
assailed
of decree
Decision
showing
datedthat
April
Decree
17, 2006,
No. 365835
the dispositive
was issued
portion
for Lot
of No.
which
1499, as a basis for reconstitution. We noticed that t
states:
of the issuance of such decree was illegible. While Decree No. 365835 existed in the Record Book of Cadastral Lots in the Land Registration Authority as s
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the same
thereport
appealdid
is hereby
not state
DISMISSED
the number
foroflack
the of
original
merit. certificate of title, which is not sufficient evidence in support of the petition for reconstitution.
Hence, the petitioner sought with
reliefsale
before
executed
this Court
by Aguinaldo
and relied and
on the
Restituto
following
Tumulak
grounds
Perez
to support
and respondent
its petition:
on February 12, 1979 did not also mention the number of the original ce
I
Tahanan Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, the absence of any document, private or official, mentioning the numbe
21
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
when
IN the
AFFIRMING
certificate
THE of
TRIAL
title
COURTS
was issued,
ORDER
does
GRANTING
not warrant
RECONSTITUTION
the granting
OF of
ORIGINAL
such petition.
CERTIFICATE
(Citation omitted, emphasis supplied.)
OF TITLE NO. 3980.
Lastly, on the peripheral issue of whether or not the OSG should be faulted for not filing an opposition to respondents petition for reconstitution before
II
oversight has no bearing on the validity of the appeal which the OSG filed before the Court of Appeals. This Court has reiterated time and again that
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
agencies
IN ITS is
APPLICATION
of no controlling
OF PARAGRAPH
significance
F, because
SECTIONthe
2 OF
State
REPUBLIC
cannotACT
be estopped
NO. 26. by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents. 22 Neither is th
On the other hand, respondents
granting
put forward
the petition
the following
for reconstitution
issues for if,
consideration:
on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit. 23
(a) HAS THERE BEEN SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE
, premises
OF ACT
considered,
26, REQUIREMENTS
the petition is
RECONSTITUTING
GRANTED. The OCT
Decision
NO. dated
3890 AND
April ISSUANCE
17, 2006 ofOF
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80132 and t
ANOTHER OWNERS DUPLICATE
TrialCOPY?
Court, Branch 24 of Echague, Isabela are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for reconstitution is DENIED.
(b) DID THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY SUSTAIN THE RENDERED DECISION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN?
Petitioner argues that the alleged
TERESITA
loss or destruction of the owners duplicate copy of OCT No.
J. 3980 has no evidentiary basis and
LEONARDO-DE
that there is no sufficient basis for the reconstitution of OCT No. 3980. Petitioner likewise maintains that the findings of fact of the
Court of Appeals are not supported by the evidence on record. Lastly, petitioner insists that, contrary to respondents assertion, the
government of the Republic of
MARIA
the Philippines is not estopped by the mistakes,LOURDES
negligence or omission of its agents.
P.
A.
For their part, respondents maintain that they have complied with Section 2 of Republic Act No. 26 considering that there was no
opposition from the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG); that the OSG is guilty
of estoppel; that there was a BERSAMIN
valid basis MARTIN
for
LUCAS
P.
S.
VI
reconstitution of OCT No. 3980; that there was compliance with jurisdictional requirements; that both the original file copy and Associate
the
Justice
owners copy of the subject BIENVENIDO
OCT for reconstitution were lost or destroyed beyond discovery; and that questions of fact are not
L.
subject to review by this Court.
In essence, the focal issue of the present case is whether or not the reconstitution of OCT No. 3980 was in accordance with the
pertinent law and jurisprudence
on thetomatter.
Pursuant
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the ca
The petition is impressed with merit.
The relevant law that governs
the
reconstitution
of a lost or destroyed TorrensLOURDES
certificate of title is Republic Act No. 26. Section 2 of
MARIA
P.
A.
said statute enumerates the following as valid sources for judicial reconstitution of title:
SECTION 2. Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available,
in the following order:
(a) The owners duplicate of the certificate of pp.
title;
11-14; penned by Associate .Justice Eliezer R. de los Santos with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, .Jr. and Arturo G. Tay<Jg, concurring
(b) The co-owners, mortgagees, or lessees duplicate of the certificate of title;
(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
(d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of
title was issued;
(e) A document, on file in the Registry of Deeds, by which the property, the description of which is given in said document, is
mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed
certificate of title.
As borne out by the records of this case, respondents were unable to present any of the documents mentioned in paragraphs (a) to
(e) above. Thus, the only documentary evidence the respondents were able to present as possible sources for the reconstitution of
OCT No. 3980 are those that they believed to fall under the class of "any other document" described in paragraph (f).
In the assailed April 17, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the trial courts ruling by granting
respondents petition for reconstitution of OCT No. 3980 merely on the bases of a purported deed of sale,
technical description.12 The relevant portion of said Decision reads:
The appeal is bereft of merit.
, G.R. No. 171774, February 12, 2010, 612 SCRA 472, 478, citing Republic v. Tuastumban, G.R. No. 173210, April 24, 2009, 586 SCR
In granting the petition, the trial court ratiocinated:
Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In case of loss or theft of an owners duplicate certificate of title, due notice u
"As basis for the reconstitution
of
the
lost
title,
the
of sale, Exh
"M", evidencing
transaction
over the
in soon
addition
to loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificat
someone in his behalf todeed
the Register
of Deeds
of the province
or city where
theproperty,
land lies as
as the
the sketch plan, Exh. "E" and
technical
description,
Exh.of"D",
duly
approved
to the a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or dest
by athe
person
applying
for the entry
a new
certificate
to under
him or (LRA)
for thePR-02-00022-R
registration of pursuant
any instrument,
provisions (of) Section 12 of Republic Act No. 26, as embodied in the report filed by the Land Registration Authoriy, Exh. "J", would
be sufficient basis for the reconstitution of the lost title." (p. 3, Rollo, p. 38)
Appellees presented the approved sketch plan with its blue print, the certified technical description of the subject lot, the Deed of
Sale executed by Antonia Pascua, the Tax Declaration, and Tax Payment Receipts. To the mind of this Court, there was sufficient and
preponderant evidence thus presented to warrant the reconstitution of the original of OCT No. 3980 and the issuance of another
Owners Duplicate Copy thereof. The enumeration of
the No.
preferential
documents
to be645
produced,
as provided
under Section 2 of
, G.R.
169599, March
16, 2011,
SCRA 520,
537.
Republic Act 26 had been substantially complied with.
of loss of documents
were
attested
to by the custodian thereof,
G.R. Certifications
No. 172848, December
10, 2008, 573
SCRA
465, 477.
the Land Registration Authority of Ilagan, Isabela and Quezon City (Exh. "F", Supra
this premise that paragraph (f) of Section 2, RA 26 comes to the fore, viz: "Any other document which, in the judgment of the court,
is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
As correctly pointed out by petitioner, we had emphasized in Republic v. Holazo14
(f) refers to reliable documents of the kind described in the preceding enumerations and that the documents referred to in Section
2(f) may be resorted to only in the absence of the preceding documents in the list. Therefore, the party praying for the
of them before
the
Philippines
reconstitution of a title must show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such Republic
documents and failed to find
SUPREME
COURT
presentation of "other documents" as evidence in substitution is allowed. Thus, we stated
in
Manila
When Rep. Act No. 26, Section 2(f), or 3(f) for that matter, speaks of "any other document,"
it must refer to similar documents
THIRD
DIVISION
previously enumerated therein or documents ejusdem generis as the documents earlier referred to. The documents alluded to in
G.R. No.
5,he
2012
Section 3(f) must be resorted to in the absence of those preceding in order. If the petitioner
for 181891
reconstitution failsDecember
to show that
REPUBLIC
OFthe title THE
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
had, in fact, sought to secure such prior documents (except with respect to the owners
duplicate copy of
which it claims
vs. documents as substitutionary evidence is
had been, likewise, destroyed) and failed to find them, the presentation of the succeeding
15
ZOOMAK
R.P.C.,
INC.,
Respondents.
proscribed. (Citation omitted.)
D E C Ian
S I order
O N for reconstitution can validly
Furthermore, in a more recent case, this Court enumerated what should be shown before
J.:
issue, namely: (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that ABAD,
the documents
presented by petitioner are
concerns
the reconstitution
of a certificate of title from a source other
sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of This
title; case
(c) that
the petitioner
is the registered
than
a
copy
of
said
certificate
title or ofand
the decree of registration.
owner of the property or had an interest therein; (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was
lost or of
destroyed;
The
Facts
and
the contained
Case
(e) that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the
same
and
those
in the lost or
On January 7, 1930 the land registration court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rendered a
destroyed certificate of title.16
in by
a cadastral
(GLRO Cad.
In the case at bar, the respondents were unable to discharge the burden of proof decision
prescribed
law and case
jurisprudence
forRec.
the 201, Cad. Case 10), adjudicating Lot
of the
Longos
Cadastre,
Laguna,
having
reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certificate of title. First, respondents failed1950
to prove
that
the owners
duplicate
copy
of an area of almost one hectare, in
favor of Lorenzo
one Teresa
Macawili.
On December
OCT No. 3980 was indeed eaten by termites while in the custody of respondent Concepcion
and her
late husband
Pedro 26, 1930 the Court issued Decree
416517
Fontanilla who, inexplicably, did not execute an affidavit of loss as required by Section
109in her favor. During World War II, however, Teresa Macawili's copy of the
Original
Certificate
Title
(OCT) and the
copy
Second, The Certification 18 dated April 23, 2001 issued by the Register of Deeds of Ilagan,
Isabela
did not
categorically
state
thatof the Register of Deeds (RD) covering
the
lot
were
lost orthose
destroyed.
the original copy of OCT No. 3980, which respondents alleged to be on file with said office, was
among
destroyed by the fire
Inthat
1996
respondent
Zoomak
R.P.C., Inc. (Zoomak) bought the land from Nestor
that gutted the premises of said office on December 4, 1976. The document only stated
said
office "could
not
Macawili,
turn770
hadsq.
bought
it fromat
his uncle, Galicano Macatangga, Teresa
give any information/data involving the existence of Original/Transfer Certificate of Title
No. Lot Jr.,
No.who
18, in
area
m., located
1
Macawili's and
solethe
heir.technical
On February
26, 1998
Taggapan, Echague, Isabela." Third, a comparison between the aforementioned certification
description
and Zoomak filed with the Regional Trial
Court
(RTC)
of
Sta.
Cruz,
Laguna,
a
petition
sketch plan will reveal that there was a discrepancy in the land area of the lot allegedly covered by OCT No. 3980. What wasfor reconstitution of the original or RD
copy pertained
of the title
number
of which was unknown, as well as the
reflected on the former was a land area of 770 sq. m. while the latter two documents
to of
a the
landland,
area the
of 811
sq. m.
owner's
duplicate
copy. covering the subject
Furthermore, respondents were not able to show adequate proof that a Torrens certificate
of title
was issued
January 18,
the RTC
Zoomak's petition and ordered the Laguna
parcel of land or that the same piece of land is what is covered by the allegedly lost orOn
destroyed
OCT2000
No. 3980.
Thegranted
Certification
RD to reconstitute
theNo.
OCT650254
covering
the subject
property. But the Republic of the
dated December 3, 2001 issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) which indicates
that Decree
issued
on
Philippines,
represented
byor
the
Office of as
theaSolicitor General (OSG), appealed the
September 1, 1937 is not among the salvaged decrees on file in the LRA and is presumed
to have
been lost
destroyed
order did
to the
Court
On May 31, 2007 the CA dismissed the appeal
consequence of World War II does not support respondents assertion that OCT No. 3980
exist
prioroftoAppeals
its loss(CA).
or destruction
and OCT
affirmed
RTCFrom
Decision,
hence, thisitpetition.
because said document failed to show a connection between Decree No. 650254 and
No. the
3980.
the foregoing,
is
The
Issue
Presented
apparent that the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that "(t)he enumeration of the preferential documents to be produced as
The no
only
issue presented
in the
this evidence
case is whether
or not the CA erred in affirming
provided under Section 2 of Republic Act 26 had been substantially complied with" had
foundation
based on
on
the RTC's Decision that granted Zoomak's application for the reconstitution of
record.
Macawili's
lost which
title over
the subject
property.
Likewise, the deed of sale purportedly between Antonia Pascua, as seller, and Pedro Teresa
Fontanilla,
as buyer,
involves
OCT No.
Ruling of
Courtof sale would reveal
3980 cannot be relied upon as basis for reconstitution of Torrens certificate of title. An The
examination
of the
the deed
The reconstitution
ofdate
a certificate
of OCT
title was
under Republic Act (R.A.) 26 2 denotes the
that the number of the OCT allegedly covering the subject parcel of land is clearly indicated,
however, the
when said
restoration
the reiterated
original form
issued does not appear in the document. This circumstance is fatal to respondents cause
as we in
have
in and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument,
attestingthe
thenumber
title of aofperson
to a pieceofof land. Its purpose is to have the title
Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas20 that the absence of any document, private or official,thus
mentioning
the certificate
title and the date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of a petition for reconstitution. We held

reproduced in exactly the same way it was before its loss or destruction after
observing the procedures prescribed by law.3
One of the evidence Zoomak presented is a Land Registration Authority (LRA)
certification dated August 28, 1997. The certification stated that, based on LRA
records, on December 26, 1930 the land registration court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna,
issued in a cadastral case before it Decree 416517 covering Lot 1950 in favor of
Teresa Macawili. The OSG contends, however, that the certification has no force
and effect and cannot bind the LRA since it was not signed by the Acting Chief of
the Ordinary and Cadastral Decree Division, the officer authorized to issue the
same for and in behalf of the LRA Administrator. The OSG also points out that the
RTC Certification dated August 28, 1997 adjudicating Lot 1950 in favor of Teresa
Macawili was a mere photocopy.
But, notably, the Government did not object to the admission of the separate LRA
and RTC certifications when they were presented and offered in evidence at the
hearing of the reconstitution case. The rule is that when the adverse party fails to
object to the evidence when it is offered, such party may be deemed to agree to its
admission. This is true even if by its nature the evidence is inadmissible and would
have surely been rejected if it had been challenged at the proper time.4
The OSG of course argues that admissibility is different from probative value and
that the certifications mentioned are of no value to the application for
reconstitution of title. But the determination of probative value or the evidentiary
weight of a piece of evidence depends, not on the party making a belated
objection to such evidence, but on the court or courts that decide the merit of the
case.5
Here, both the trial court and the CA found such certifications worthy of belief and
essential proof of the existence of the lost title that respondent sought to
reconstitute. Indeed, these courts can under Section 2(f) of R.A. 26 6 consider the
LRA Certification of August 28, 1997 as evidence that Lot 1950 was issued Decree
416517 pursuant to the decision in the cadastral case. They may also consider the
RTC Certification of the same date as evidence that the docket entry of Lot 1950
with Decree 416517 appeared in Teresa Macawili's name.1wphi1
The OSG likewise contends that the RD's Certification of September 16, 1997,
which states that Lot 1950 was not covered by any title, serves as proof that such
lot has never been titled. But, as the CA aptly held, such certification merely states
that Lot 1950 was not covered by any title as of September 16, 1997. The same is
true with the Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan ng Lupa and Kasulatan ng
Pagbibilihan. This private document merely shows that Lot 1950 was not covered
by a registered title at the time the transaction was entered into. These private
documents merely show that Lot 1950 was not registered at the time of their
execution, precisely because the title was yet to be reconstituted following its loss
or destruction. These documents could not possibly be taken as conclusive
evidence that Lot 1950 has never been issued a registered title in the past as the
OSG would have it.
With respect to the issue on the LRA's non-submission of a report on the plan and
technical descriptions, the RTC considered the non-submission as a waiver on the
part of the LRA, an agency of oppositor Republic, of the opportunity to contest their
correctness when it failed to submit the requested report despite being furnished
with all the documents it needed. The OSG of course insists that the RTC should
have used its compulsory processes to extract compliance. But the RTC cannot be
faulted because the plan for Lot 1950 and its technical descriptions are mere
additional requirements of the law if reconstitution is to be made under Section
2(f), and not by themselves sources for reconstitution of title.7
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals
decision in CA-G.R. CV 66572 dated May 31, 2007.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO
A.
ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO
J.
VELASCO,
JR.
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO
M.
PERALTA JOSE
CATRAL
MENDOZA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MARVIC
MARIO
F.
LEONEN
Associate Justice
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 88521-22. January 31, 2000]
HEIRS OF EULALIO RAGUA, namely, DOMINGO, MARCIANA, MIGUEL,
FRANCISCO, VALERIANA, JUANA, and REMEDIOS, all surnamed RAGUA;
DANILO and CARLOS, both surnamed LARA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
NATIONAL HOUSING
AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., INC., J. M.
TUASON & CO., INC. and HEIRS OF D. TUASON, INC., respondents.
[G.R. Nos. 89366-67. January 31, 2000]
MARINO T. REGALADO and ELISA C. DUFOURT petitioners, vs. REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, QUEZON CITY, (Branch 88)
presided by Hon. Tirso D. C. Velasco (formerly Court of First Instance,
Quezon City, Branch 18, then presided by Hon. Ernani Cruz Pao), and
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Special Ninth Division composed of the
HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES LUIS A. JAVELLANA REGINA G.
ORDONEZ-BENITEZ, AND LUIS L. VICTOR), respondents.
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
These consolidated cases involve a prime lot consisting of 4,399,322 square
meters, known as the Diliman Estate, situated in Quezon City. On this 439 hectares
of prime land now stand the following: the Quezon City Hall, Philippine Science
High School, Quezon Memorial Circle, Visayas Avenue, Ninoy Aquino Parks and
Wildlife, portions of UP Village and East Triangle, the entire Project 6 and Vasha
Village, Veterans Memorial Hospital and golf course, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Sugar Regulatory
Administration, Philippine Tobacco Administration, Land Registration Authority,
Philcoa Building, Bureau of Telecommunications, Agricultural Training Institute
building, Pagasa Village, San Francisco School, Quezon City Hospital, portions of
Project 7, Mindanao Avenue subdivision, part of Bago Bantay resettlement project,
SM City North EDSA, part of Phil-Am Life Homes compound and four-fifths of North

Triangle.1[1] This large estate was the subject of a petition for judicial
reconstitution originally filed by Eulalio Ragua in 1964, which gave rise to
protracted legal battles between the affected parties, lasting more than thirty-five
(35) years.
Re : G. R. Nos. 88521-22
These cases are now before the Court for review via certiorari of the decision of the
Court of Appeals2[2] that reversed and set aside the decision 3[3] of the Court of
First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch 18, ordering the Register of Deeds,
Quezon City to reconstitute Original Certificate of Title No. 632 in the name of
Eulalio Ragua. Court
On August 31, 1964, Eulalio Ragua, claiming to be the registered owner, together
with co-owners Anatalio B. Acua, Catalina Dalawantan, and other co-owners, filed
with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Caloocan City 4[4] a petition for
reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 632 of the Registry of Deeds
of Rizal, covering a parcel of land with an area of 4,399,322 square meters, as
evidenced by plan bearing No. II-4816, known as the Diliman Estate, situated in the
municipality of Caloocan, province of Rizal. Attached to the petition was a
photostatic copy of OCT No. 632 and a photostatic copy of the plan of the property
as surveyed for Eulalio Ragua. OCT No. 632 covered a large parcel of land bounded
on the North by the Culiat Creek, a ditch, the Piedad Estate; on the East by the
property of Gregorio Tiburcio and Mahabang Gubat; on the South by the property
of Miguel Estanislao; on the West by the property of Segundo Limoco, the
Mariabelo Creek; and on the South by the San Francisco del Monte Estate. Jlexj
On September 9, 1964, J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. (Tuason) filed with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Caloocan City an opposition to the petition alleging that OCT No.
632 was fictitious and the land was covered by TCT No. 1356 in the name of
Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC). TCT No. 1356 originated from
OCT No. 735 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal, registered in the name of Tuasons
predecessor-in-interest. Furthermore, the validity of OCT No. 735 had been
declared as beyond judicial review in the case of Maximo L. Galvez vs. Mariano
Severo Tuason, 119 Phil. 612, promulgated on February 29, 1964.
On September 10, 1964, the People Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC),
later succeeded by the National Housing Authority (NHA), filed with the same trial
court its opposition to Raguas petition for reconstitution of OCT No. 632. PHHC
averred that Raguas petition did not comply with the requirements of the law on
judicial reconstitution. PHHC likewise contended that OCT No. 632 in the name of
Eulalio Ragua was fictitious, and that the property was covered by TCT No. 1356 in
the name of PHHC. PHHC maintained that TCT No. 1356 was originally covered by
OCT No. 735, the validity of which had been declared by the Supreme Court as
beyond judicial review in the afore-cited case of Maximo L. Galvez vs. Mariano
Severo Tuason, supra. Lexjuris
Also on September 10, 1964, petitioner Eulalio Ragua filed with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, Pasig, Rizal another petition for reconstitution of OCT
No. 632, G. L. R. O. No. 7984. Ragua alleged that he was the owner of a parcel of
land situated in Diliman, Quezon City, with an area of four million three hundred
ninety nine thousand three hundred twenty two (4,399,322) square meters,
particularly bounded and described as indicated on Plan II-4816 and that the
owners duplicate of OCT No. 632 had been lost and destroyed many years ago
when his personal effects and papers were eaten by termites.
On September 23, 1964, the Court of First Instance of Rizal at Pasig, issued an
order directing the transfer of the record of G. L. R. O. No. 7984 to the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Caloocan City as the land involved was situated in Caloocan City.
Jurismis
On September 28, 1964, Eulalio Ragua filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Caloocan City a manifestation for the consolidation of G. L. R. O. Record No. 7984
with Civil Case No. C-119. On November 24, 1964, the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Caloocan City granted the manifestation and consolidated the two cases.
Jjjuris
On January 29, 1965, during the pendency of the petition, Sulpicio Alix applied for,
and on the same date, obtained from the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, an
administrative reconstitution of OCT No. 632.
On February 10, 1965, Tuason filed with the Court of First Instance of Quezon City,
Branch 18 a complaint for annulment of OCT No. 632 5[5] and subsequent transfer
certificates of titles (TCTs) originating therefrom, against the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City, Eulalio Ragua, J. Sulpicio R. Alix, Ramon S. Mendoza, Leocadio D.
Santiago, and others. Tuason alleged that he was the successor-in-interest of the
parcels of land in Quezon City originally covered by OCT 735 issued on July 8, 1914
in G.L.R.O. Case No. 7681, as evidenced by TCT No. 32001 and TCT Nos. 37676 to

1[1] G. R. Nos. 88521-22, Rollo, pp. 10421043.


2[2] In CA-G. R. CV Nos. 00705-06,
promulgated on May 30, 1989.
3[3] In Case No. C-119 LRC (GLRO) Record No.
7984 and Civil Case No. Q-8559 dated March
24, 1980, Judge Ernani Cruz Pao, presiding.
4[4] Branch 12, docketed as Civil Case No. C119.
5[5] Docketed as Civil Case No. Q-8559.

37686 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. Tuason averred that on January 29,
1965, Ragua and/or Alix knowingly caused to be reconstituted administratively in
the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, a fake OCT No. 632 covering 4,399,322
square meters of land situated in Diliman, Quezon City. Tuason maintained that
OCT No. 632 in the name of Ragua was a fake title since the records of the Registry
of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal showed that OCT No. 632 was issued in the name of
Dominga J. Oripiano, for a parcel of land covering 97 hectares situated in Taytay,
Rizal. justice
On February 15, 1965, Eulalio Ragua filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Quezon City a "Motion to Confirm the Administrative Reconstitution of Original
Certificate of Title No. 632" alleging that on January 29, 1965, Sulpicio Alix filed the
owners duplicate copy of OCT No. 632 with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City
for the administrative reconstitution of said title. Alix secured the owners duplicate
copy of OCT No. 632 by virtue of a deed of sale executed in his favor by Eulalio
Ragua. As a result, the Register of Deeds issued OCT No. 88081 in the name of
Eulalio Ragua. Subsequently, Alix succeeded in having OCT No. 88081 cancelled
and replaced with TCT No. 88082 in his name, which, in turn, was replaced by 31
Transfer Certificates of Title on the strength of deeds of absolute sale executed by
Alix in favor of third parties.
On February 17, 1965, Tuason filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon
City an opposition to the motion of petitioners for the confirmation of the
administrative reconstitution of OCT No. 632. Tuason alleged that OCT No. 632
issued to Eulalio Ragua was a fake title, reconstituted administratively by certain
persons using surreptitious means, without any notice to all parties concerned and
without following the procedure prescribed by law governing the administrative
reconstitution of lost titles. Tuason further stated that the court had no jurisdiction
to confirm the administratively reconstituted OCT No. 632 inasmuch as under RA
26, administrative reconstitution of titles and judicial reconstitution are two
different matters. Jksm
On February 24, 1965, the Republic of the Philippines 6[6] filed with the Court of
First Instance of Rizal, Caloocan City its opposition to the petition alleging that it
was the owner of the land including the buildings and improvements thereon, now
known as the Veterans Memorial Hospital (VMH), acquired from the PHHC. The VMH
site was part of the land acquired by PHHC from Tuason under TCT No. 1356,
originally covered by Tuasons OCT No. 735, the validity of which was judicially
recognized by the Supreme Court. 7[7] The Republic adopted the opposition of the
PHHC and Tuason. It further contended that it was a transferee in good faith,
thereby barring any pretended right of petitioners to the portion owned and
possessed by it. Es m
In sum, the petition for reconstitution filed by Eulalio Ragua was opposed by
several parties, to wit: the Tuasons, the National Housing Authority (formerly
PHHC), Department of National Defense, Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, Parks and Wildlife, Philippine American Life Insurance Company, et. al.,
among other parties, which claimed to have purchased portions of the Diliman
Estate from the Tuasons.
On April 18, 1968, Eulalio Ragua died, and on April 29, 1968, was substituted by
his heirs Domingo, Marciana, Miguel, Juana, Francisco, Valeriana, and Remedios, all
surnamed Ragua, and Carlito Ragua Lara, as petitioners. Es msc
On January 10, 1972, petitioners and oppositors filed with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Quezon City a joint motion to transfer the proceedings in Case
No. C-119 /G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 7984 to Branch 18, Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Quezon City for consolidation with Civil Case No. Q-8559, 8[8] which consolidation
was effected.
After due hearing, on March 24, 1980, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon
City rendered decision9[9] the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders judgment
"1. In Case No. 119, the Quezon City Register of Deeds is ordered to reconstitute in
the name of Eulalio Ragua Original Certificate of Title No. 632, with the Technical
Description appearing in Plan II-4816 and Annexes A & B of the Petition, upon
payment of all lawful fees;
"2. In Case Q-8559, declaring null and void, and cancelling the administratively
reconstituted OCT 632 (88081) and Transfer Certificates of Title derived therefrom,
including TCT 88082, 88083, 88084, 88087, 88088, 88089, 88091, 88092, 88093,
88094, 88095, 88096, 88097, 88098, 88030, 88656, 88657, 88658, 88659, 88671,
88677, 88674, 88675, 88689, and all any transfer certificates of title derived
therefrom.

6[6] The Republic of the Philippines appeared


in behalf of the following government
agencies: Department of National Defense,
Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, and Parks and Wildlife Office.
7[7] Tiburcio vs. PHHC, 106 Phil. 477 [1959]
and Galvez vs. Mariano Severo Tuason, 119
Phil. 612 [1964].
8[8] Tuason Record on Appeal, pp. 121-123.
9[9] In Civil Case No. C-119 and Civil Case No.
Q-8559.

"The claims in interventions in Case No. 119 of parties who upheld the validity of
the Ragua title, as well as any claims in Case 8559 against Sulpicio Alix may be
prosecuted in separate proceedings.
"No pronouncement as to costs.
"SO ORDERED.
"Quezon City, Philippines, March 24, 1980.
"(SGD) ERNANI CRUZ PAO
"ERNANI CRUZ PAO
"District Judge"10[10]
In due time, oppositors, including the Republic, filed with the trial court a motion
for reconsideration of the decision. On August 29, 1980, the trial court denied the
motion.
The Republic appealed the trial courts decision to the Court of Appeals. 11[11]
Private oppositors and the National Housing Authority filed separate appeals to the
Court of Appeals. Esmm is
After due proceedings on appeal, on May 30, 1989, the Court of Appeals
promulgated its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed insofar as it orders the
reconstitution of OCT 632 in the name of Eulalio Ragua.
"Without pronouncement as to costs.
"SO ORDERED."12[12]
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the petition
for reconstitution for failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of
publication and posting of notices provided under Republic Act No. 26, Sections 12
and 13. The Court of Appeals ruled that assuming arguendo that the trial court had
jurisdiction over the petition, the evidence presented in court to support the
application was dubious in character and insufficient to justify the reconstitution.
Esmso
The Court of Appeals held furthermore that the land in question was embraced in
OCT No. 735, issued in the name of Tuason, the validity of which was upheld by the
Supreme Court in several cases. 13[13] The trial court could not proceed with the
reconstitution proceedings without Tuasons title and those originating therefrom
being annulled first.14[14] The Court of Appeals also ruled that petitioners were
guilty of laches since it took them nineteen (19) years from the end of World War II
in 1945, wherein OCT 632 was lost, to file the petition for reconstitution. Mse sm
On July 22, 1989, petitioners filed this petition for review on certiorari assailing the
Court of Appeals decision.15[15]
Re: G. R. Nos. 89366-67
Petitioners Elisa G. Dufourt and Marino T. Regalado were owners of 45 and 55
hectares, respectively, of the same parcel of land known as the Diliman Estate,
which was subject of the petition for judicial reconstitution of OCT No. 632, filed by
Eulalio Ragua with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Caloocan City, later
transferred to Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City. Sometime in 1972,
petitioners acquired the property by virtue of deeds of assignment executed by
Eulalio Ragua in their favor. Petitioners rights and interests over the above
property have been confirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 20701,
promulgated on May 4, 1989. Ex sm
As heretofore stated, on March 24, 1980, the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Quezon City rendered decision in favor of Ragua, ordering the Register of Deeds,
Quezon City, to reconstitute OCT 632 in the name of Ragua.
On October 28, 1980, petitioners filed with the Court of First Instance, Quezon City
a motion for execution of the judgment rendered by it, contending that the
judgment had become final after the Register of Deeds and Land Registration
Commission failed to file an appeal within the prescribed period. On January 5,

10[10] G. R. No. 88521-22, Rollo, pp. 86-116.


11[11] Docketed as CA-G. R. CV Nos. 0070500706.
12[12] G. R. Nos. 88521-22, Rollo, pp. 117151.
13[13] J. M. Tuason & Co. v. Bolanos, 95 Phil
106 [1954]; J. M. Tuason & Co. v. de Guzman,
99 Phil. 281 [1956]; J. M. Tuason & Co. v.
Santiago, 99 Phil. 615 [1956]; Tiburcio v.
PHHC, supra, Note 7; J. M. Tuason & Co. v.
Aguirre, 117 Phil. 110 [1963]; Galvez v. J. M.
Tuason & Co., supra, Note 7.
14[14] Alabang Development Corporation v.
Valenzuela, 116 SCRA 261 [1982].
15[15] Docketed as G. R. Nos. 88521-22.

1981, the trial court denied the motion for execution and approved the record on
appeal filed by the Republic of the Philippines. Kyle
On March 7, 1983, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals, a motion to dismiss
the appeal, which the court denied.
As aforesaid, on May 30, 1989, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision.
On August 14, 1989, petitioners filed with this Court, a petition for certiorari and
mandamus, with prohibition and temporary restraining order 16[16] seeking the
execution of the trial courts order authorizing reconstitution of OCT No. 632.
Kycalr
On August 21, 1989, we consolidated G. R. Nos. 89366-67 with G. R. Nos. 8852122.17[17]
On March 26, 1990, we required respondents in G. R. Nos. 88521-22 to comment
on the petition.18[18] On June 28, 1990, the Solicitor General filed his comment. 19
[19]
On November 23, 1992, we required respondents in G. R. Nos. 89366-67 to
comment on the petition.20[20] On September 27, 1993, the Solicitor General filed
his comment.21[21]
In the course of this controversy, portions of the contested property had been the
subject of sales to different persons, some of whom moved to intervene in the
cases, or to substitute the parties therein, which further complicated the cases.
Calrky
On October 7, 1997, the surviving heirs of Eulalio Ragua, assisted by judicial
administratrix Norma G. Aquino, filed with this Court a manifestation offering to
execute deeds of donations in favor of the government and its instrumentalities, of
all portions of the real property actually occupied by offices performing
governmental functions, including roads and parking areas.22[22]
We give due course to the petitions and decide them jointly.
These cases present two (2) basic issues, namely, (1) whether the trial court
acquired jurisdiction over the proceedings for reconstitution of title due to noncompliance with the jurisdictional requirements prescribed for reconstitution of
titles, and (2) whether the evidence of the sources of the title to be reconstituted
was sufficient basis therefor.
With respect to the first issue, R. A. No. 26, Sections 12 and 13, provide for
jurisdictional requirements of petitions for reconstitution of titles filed on the basis
of documents other than the owners or co-owners duplicate certificates of title.
The provisions are quoted hereunder: Mesm
"SEC. 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in sections 2(c),
2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper
Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having
an interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain, among other things,
the following: (a) that the owners duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost
or destroyed; (b) that no co-owners mortgagees or lessees duplicate had been
issued, or if any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed; (c) the
location, area and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and description of the
buildings or improvements, if any which do not belong to the owner of the land,
and the names and addresses of the owners of such building or improvements; (e)
the name and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property,
of the owners of the adjoining properties and of all persons who may have any
interest in the property; (f) a detailed description of the encumbrances, if any,
affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments
affecting the property have been presented for registration, or if there be any, the
registration thereof has not been accomplished, as yet. All the documents, or
authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in support of the
petition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with the same:
Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources
enumerated in Section 2(f) or 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further
accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved
by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or with a certified copy of the
description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property.
"SEC. 13. The court shall cause a notice of the petition filed under the preceding
section, to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive
issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the

16[16] G. R. Nos. 89366-67, Rollo, pp. 3-18.


17[17] G. R. Nos. 89366-67, Rollo, p. 202.
18[18] G. R. Nos. 88521-22, Rollo, p. 273.
19[19] G. R. Nos. 88521-22, Rollo, pp. 310349.
20[20] G. R. Nos. 89366-67, Rollo, p. 598.
21[21] G. R. Nos. 89366-67, Rollo, pp. 630634.
22[22] G. R. Nos. 88521-22, Rollo, pp. 10311035.

municipality or city in which the land is situated, at the provincial building and of
the municipal building at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. The Court
shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail or
otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein whose
address is among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of
title if known, the name of the registered owner, the names of the occupants or
persons in possession of the property, the owners of the adjoining properties and
all other interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the property, and
the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file
their claim or objections to the petition. The petition shall, at the hearing, submit
proof of the publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the court."
Scslx
Petitioners admittedly did not comply with the requirements of Section 12 (d), (e)
and (g), namely, the petition did not state (1) the nature and description of the
buildings or improvements, if any, which do not belong to the owner of the land,
and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements, (2)
the names and addresses of the occupants of the adjoining property and of all
persons who may have any interest in the property and (3) that no deeds or other
instrument affecting the property have been presented for registration. Neither do
these data appear in the notice of hearing. Besides, petitioners also did not comply
with the notice and publication requirement under Section 13 because the order
directed that the notice be posted at the Caloocan City Hall, not in Quezon City,
where the land is situated. Slxs c
We have ruled that the failure to comply with the requirements of publication and
posting of notices prescribed in Republic Act No. 26, Sections 12 and 13 is fatal to
the jurisdiction of the court. 23[23] Hence, non-compliance with the jurisdictional
requirements renders its decision approving the reconstitution of OCT No. 632 and
all proceedings therein utterly null and void.24[24]
The next issue to resolve is whether the documents of the sources of the title to be
reconstituted sufficed for reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title No. 632 in the
name of Eulalio Ragua, in the absence of genuine copies of the owners duplicate
of the certificate of title or certified copy thereof. slx mis
The trial court allowed reconstitution of OCT 632 on the basis of sources as follows:
a. Plan II-4816, as certified by the Bureau of Lands;
b. Tracing Cloth Plan, certified by the Bureau of Lands;
c. Microfilm of Plan II-4816;
d. The application of Eulalio Ragua as certified to by Commissioner Noblejas on July
14, 1964;
e. Photographic copy of the Original Certificate of Title No. 632;
f. Decree No. 6970 certified to by the Land Registration Commission;
g. Technical Description of the Ragua Property duly certified to by both the Bureau
of Lands and Land Registration Commission;
h. Tax Declaration No. 8501 dated December 25, 1925 and made operative as of
1917.
The Court of Appeals held that the documents submitted were dubious in character
and could not be proper sources of reconstitution of OCT No. 632. This is a factual
finding that we cannot review in this review on certiorari.25[25]
First: Regarding Plan II-4816 and microfilm of Plan II-4816, the Court of Appeals
found that there were conflicting reports regarding their authenticity as there was
showing of splicing of the microfilm, which tainted its genuineness. Consequently,
Plan II-4816 can not be considered as genuine evidence for reconstitution. Missdaa
Second: the application for registration of title of Eulalio Ragua, duly certified by
Commissioner Noblejas did not indicate that the application was approved. Hence,
it can not constitute proof of the title supposedly issued subsequently. Neither was
there proof that such application was published in the Official Gazette as required
by law.
Third: the photographic copy of OCT No. 632 was not authenticated by the
Register of Deeds.
Fourth: the copy of Decree No. 6970, can not be considered as competent
evidence because only the upper and lower parts of the document remain. The
document does not show to whom the decree was issued or the technical
description of the property covered.

23[23] Alabang Development Corporation v.


Valenzuela, 116 SCRA 261 [1982]; Director of
Lands v. Court of Appeals, 102 SCRA 370,
435 [1981]; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 247
SCRA 551, 556 [1995]; Stilianopulos v. The
City of Legaspi, G. R. No. 133913, October
12, 1999.
24[24] Stilianopulos v. The City of Legaspi,
supra, citing Alabang Development
Corporation v. Valenzuela, supra; Republic v.
Marasigan, 198 SCRA 219 [1991].
25[25] Alipoon v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No.
127523, March 22, 1999; National Steel
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA
45, 67 [1997].

Fifth: the tax declarations covering the property do not prove ownership over the
land.26[26]
Consequently, we agree with the Court of Appeals that none of the source
documents presented was reliable. We are convinced that the factual findings of
the Court of Appeals are supported by sufficient evidence and, thus, binding on
this Court. We will not disturb these factual findings. Sda adsc
Moreover, petitioners filed the petition for reconstitution of OCT 632 nineteen (19)
years after the title was allegedly lost or destroyed. We thus consider petitioners
guilty of laches.27[27] Laches is negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it
either has abandoned or declined to assert it.28[28]
We find hypocritical and pharisaical petitioners manifestation expressing
willingness to donate to the government the portions of the 439 hectares of land
presently occupied by government offices. Nihil dat qui non habet He can not
give what he does not have.29[29]
Petitioners contend that the trial courts decision has become final and executory
for failure of the Register of Deeds and Land Registration Commission to appeal
within the prescribed period.
Petitioners submission can not be sustained.
Petitioners were not parties in the case before the trial court for the judicial
reconstitution of OCT 632. It was Eulalio Ragua, later succeeded by his heirs, who
filed the petition for reconstitution. Not being parties to the petition, petitioners
have no personality to file the motion for execution of judgment. In any event, the
decision cannot be executed as timely appeals therefrom were taken by the
parties. Rtc spped
In a petition for judicial reconstitution of title, the Register of Deeds is merely a
nominal party. In fact, it is not even required to implead him. In the instant cases,
the Republic of the Philippines together with other intervenors and oppositors,
interposed appeals to the Court of Appeals within the prescribed period.
There is no merit to petitioners argument that the Court of Appeals decision in
CA-G. R. CV No. 20701 is legally incompatible with its decision in CA-G. R. CV Nos.
00705-00706. CA-G. R. CV No. 20701 confirmed the legal rights of petitioners over
the parcels of land ceded to them by virtue of the deeds of assignments executed
by Eulalio Ragua. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 20701 did
not involve the validity of the Ragua title. Korte
On the other hand, the decision in CA-G. R. CV Nos. 00705-06 dealt with the
petition for judicial reconstitution of title filed by Eulalio Ragua and granted by the
trial court.
"The reconstitution of a title is simply the reissuance of a new duplicate certificate
of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition." 30[30]
Consequently, as the purported sources of the title to be reconstituted were
dubious, the trial court erred in making use of them for the reconstitution of the
title in the name of Eulalio Ragua. Sclaw
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DENIES the petitions in G. R. Nos. 88521-22 and
G. R. Nos. 89366-67, for lack of merit. The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV Nos. 00705-00706, promulgated on May 30, 1989.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., took no part, appeared as counsel for respondent Republic of the
Philippines in an incident before the trial court when he was Asst. Sol. Gen.

26[26] Rivera v. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA


218, 222 [1995].
27[27] Alabang Development Corporation v.
Valenzuela, supra.
28[28] Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of
Appeals, 264 SCRA 181 [1996].
29[29] Villaluz v. Neme, 7 SCRA 27, 30 [1963].
30[30] Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
294 SCRA 714, 726 [1998].

.R. No. 181057, June 17, 2015


JOSEFINA C. BILLOTE, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT,
WILLIAM C. BILLOTE AND SEGUNDO BILLOTE, Petitioner, v. IMELDA SOLIS,
SPOUSES MANUEL AND ADELAIDA DALOPE, SPOUSES VICTOR AND
REMEDIOS BADAR, REGISTER OF DEEDS (LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN), AND
HON. MELITON EMUSLAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 47, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, URDANETA CITY, Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a partial petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court seeking to partly reverse and set aside the Decision 1 and
Resolution,2 dated May 24, 2007 and December 5, 2007, respectively, of the Court
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 85583 which declared the Decision 3 dated February
24, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in PET. Case No. IJ-1959 null and void.
The

antecedent

facts

are

as

follows:

The property subject of the instant petition is a parcel of land consisting of an area
of 6,894 square meters, situated in the Municipality of Urdaneta, Province of
Pangasinan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 15296 issued under
the names of the spouses Hilario Solis and Dorotea Corla, 4 who had begotten three
(3) children, namely, Ludovico Solis, and respondents Imelda Solis and Adelaida
Solis-Dalope.5 After Hilario's death on November 15, 1955, Dorotea contracted a
subsequent marriage with Segundo Billote, with whom she had two (2) children,
namely,
petitioner
Josefma
C.
Billote
and
William
C.
Billote.
On the claim that the owner's duplicate copy of the subject property's title was
missing, respondent Imelda filed before the RTC of Urdaneta City on December 16,
2002 a Petition for the Issuance of New Owner's Duplicate Certificate of TCT No.
15296.6 Among several other documentary evidence, respondent Imelda submitted
a copy of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person with
Quitclaim dated July 13, 2002 whereby Dorotea allegedly conveyed her share in
the subject property to respondents Imelda and Adelaida, 7 as well as an Affidavit of
Loss
duly
notifying
the
Register
of
Deeds
of
the
title's
loss. 8
On February 24, 2003, the trial court granted the petition, finding that the
jurisdictional requirements of Section 109 9 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529
have been duly complied with. 10 Upon receipt of the new owner's duplicate copy,
respondents Imelda and Adelaida registered the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement,
pursuant to which TCT No. 15296 was cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 269811, 11
was
issued.12
On November 25, 2003, respondents Imelda and Adelaida executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale,13 conveying the entire subject property, including the Vi conjugal
share of Dorotea, in favor of respondent spouses Victor and Remedios Badar
(Spouses Badar). Pursuant thereto, another title, TCT No. 274696, 14 was issued in
the
name
of
the
spouses.
On July 30, 2004, petitioner, through her Attorneys-in-Fact, William Billote and
Segundo Billote, filed before the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment 15 seeking
to annul the Decision of the RTC granting respondent Imelda's Petition for the
Issuance of New Owner's Duplicate Certificate of TCT No. 15296. Petitioner alleged
that on July 28, 2001, Dorotea executed a Deed of Absolute Sale 16 conveying her
1/2 conjugal share in the subject property in favor of petitioner. She stated that
before she left for the United States in the same year, she and her mother Dorotea
entrusted to William the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 15296. 17 Petitioner also
alleged that in July 2002, respondents Imelda and Adelaida asked a certain Atty.
Ramon Veloria to assist them in transferring the entire subject property in their
names. Dorotea told them, however, that she had already sold her conjugal share
to petitioner. Despite this, respondents Imelda and Adelaida nevertheless
requested the owner's duplicate copy from William, who refused on account of lack
of any instruction from their mother and the need for the registration of the Deed
of Sale executed in favor of petitioner. In April 2004, upon hearing that his sister,
respondent Imelda, was able to buy a piece of property notwithstanding her poor
financial capacity, William went to Atty. Veloria's office wherein he discovered that
the property in question was the subject of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate. William then went to the Register of Deeds and learned that TCT No. 15296
had already been cancelled despite the fact that the owner's duplicate copy was in
his possession. Thus, petitioner sought the nullification of the RTC's decision
ordering the issuance of the new owner's copy of title for lack of jurisdiction in view
of the fact that the owner's duplicate of title was not lost, but had all the while
been
in
the
possession
of
her
brother,
William.
On May 24, 2007, the CA partially granted the petition for annulment of judgment
in the following wise:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
When spouses Badar bought subject property, it was already covered by TCT No.
269811 in the names of Imelda and Adelaida. Although the second owner's
duplicate of TCT No. 15296 was void the same having been issued by a court which
did not have jurisdiction to order the issuance of a new owner's copy in lieu of an
owner's duplicate which was not lost but was in the possession of another person,
(Straight Times, Inc. vs. CA, 294 SCRA 714; Easterworld Motor Industries Corp. vs.
Skunac Corp., 478 SCRA 420) and although TCT No. 269811 in the names of Imelda
Solis and Adelaida Dalope was fraudulently secured, such facts cannot prejudice
the right of spouses Victor and Remedios Badar absent any showing that they had
any knowledge or participation in such irregularity. Aforenamed spouses cannot be
obliged to look beyond the vendor's certificate of title which appeared to be valid
on its face and devoid of any annotation of any adverse claim. Spouses Badar
appear to be purchasers in good faith and for value as they bought the disputed
property, without notice that some other person has right or interest over the same
and paid a full price for the same at the time of the purchase or before they had
notice of any claim or interest of some other person therein ( Eduarte vs. Court of
Appeals, 253 SCRA 391). No valid transfer certificate of title can issue from a void
certificate of title, unless an innocent purchaser for value has intervened (Pineda
vs. CA and Teresita Gonzales, 409 SCRA 438). Established is the rule that the rights
of an innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected
notwithstanding the fraud employed by the sellers in securing their title ( Eduarte
vs.
CA,
supra).

While this Court, therefore, can declare the judgment dated February 24, 2003,
rendered by Branch 47, RTC, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan in PET. Case No. U-1959, as
well as the second owner's duplicate of TCT No. 15296 issued pursuant thereto null
and void for having been issued without jurisdiction, the same cannot be done
relative to TCT No. 274696 issued to the spouses Victor and Remedios Badar,
absent any showing that they purchased the property covered thereby with
knowledge or privity as to any irregularity or fraud employed by the vendors in
securing
their
title.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED in part. The
decision dated February 24, 2003 issued by Branch 47, RTC, Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan in PET. Case No. U-1959 as well as the second owner's duplicate of TCT
No. 15296 issued pursuant thereto are declared NULL and VOID.
This Court cannot declare nullity of TCT No. 274696 in the names of spouses Victor
and
Remedios
Badar.
SO ORDERED.18cralawlawlibrary
When the appellate court denied petitioner's Partial Motion for Reconsideration,
petitioner filed the instant Partial Petition for Review on Certiorari on January 31,
2008, invoking the following issues:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
DECLARING TCT NO. 269811 IN THE NAMES OF RESPONDENTS SOLIS AND DALOPE
AND TCT NO. 274696 IN THE NAMES OF RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES BADAR AS NULL
AND VOID.cralawlawlibrary
II.
WHETIiER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
CONDUCTING PROCEEDINGS OR IN NOT REFERRING THE ISSUE ON RESPONDENTSSPOUSES BADAR BEING PURCHASERS IN GOOD FAITH FOR VALUE TO THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT PURSUANT TO SEC. 6 OF RULE 47 OF THE RULES OF
COURT.
Petitioner asserts that the re-appearance and existence of the owner's duplicate
copy renders the court issuing the decision ordering the issuance of a second
owner's copy devoid of any jurisdiction. In support of her contention, petitioner
cites Sections 1819 and 1920 of Republic Act (RA) No. 2621 as well as several rulings22
wherein it has been held that if a 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 to order the issuance of a new
duplicate title. Thus, while the appellate court correctly declared the decision of
the trial court as well as the second owner's copy issued therefrom null and void,
petitioner maintains that TCT No. 269811 in the names of respondents Imelda and
Adelaida, as well as TCT No. 274696 in the names of respondent spouses Badar,
should have likewise been declared a nullity for having been derived from a void
title.
Moreover, granting that the CA did not have the authority to declare the Spouses
Badar's title null and void, petitioner contends that the appellate court should have
remanded the issue on whether said spouses were innocent purchasers for value
to the RTC, wherein the issue of ownership over the subject property is being
ventilated in Civil Case No. U-8088. According to petitioner, the Spouses Badar are
not innocent purchasers for value considering that they were able to acquire the
subject property from respondents Imelda and Adelaida only after they could not
reach the price originally offered to them by petitioner. Clearly, therefore, the
Spouses Badar had knowledge of petitioner's right to the property. In view of this
alleged bad faith on the part of the spouses, petitioner contends that the appellate
court should have ordered further proceedings to determine the veracity of the
parties'
claims
to
the
subject
property.
In their Comment, respondents Imelda and Adelaida allege that contrary to
petitioner's contention, it is actually Section 109 23 of PD No. 1529 and not Sections
18 and 19 of RA No. 26 that is applicable in this case. According to respondents,
the cited sections of RA No. 26 apply specifically to reconstitution of titles, where
the original copies thereof are lost or destroyed. Here, what was lost was not the
original copy of TCT No. 15296, as can be derived from the fact that the same is
still in the possession of the Register of Deeds, but the owner's duplicate certificate
of title. Thus, what applies herein are not the more stringent requirements
provided in RA No. 26 for reconstitution of lost or destroyed original title but those
of PD No. 1529, which merely require the applicant to submit a sworn statement as
to the fact of loss of the owner's duplicate copy to the Register of Deeds and the
trial court, which will, in turn, direct the issuance of the new duplicate title after
notice and hearing. Considering that petitioner did not appear to have any interest
in the subject property, the Deed of Absolute Sale evidencing her purchase of the
same not being registered or annotated on the title, she did not have any right to
notice of the proceedings. Accordingly, respondents assert that since proper
procedure required by applicable law was observed by the trial court, it had all the
authority to hear and decide their petition, as well as jurisdiction to order the
issuance
of
the
second
owner's
duplicate
copy
of
title.
Moreover, respondents Imelda and Adelaida refute petitioner's factual allegations,
particularly on the fact that the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 15296 had been in
William's possession all the while. Also, respondents maintain that the filing of the
instant petition is violative of the rule on forum shopping for petitioner had
previously filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Titles, Documents,
Recovery of Ownership and Possession, Damages with Prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and Writ of Injunction docketed as Civil Case No. U-8088
involving
the
same
parties,
issues,
and
causes
of
action.
For their part, respondent Spouses Badar essentially claim that they are innocent
purchasers for value who relied on the correctness of the certificate of title
presented to them by respondents Imelda and Adelaida. Thus, the appellate court
did not err when it refused to declare the nullity of the title issued to them for there
is no showing that they purchased the property covered thereby with knowledge or
privity as to any fraud employed by respondents Imelda and Adelaida in securing
their
title.
The

petition

is

partly

meritorious.

At the outset, it must be noted that the applicable law in this case is not Sections
18 and 19 of RA No. 26 but Section 109 of PD No. 1529. A reading of the provisions

clearly reveals that Sections 18 and 19 of RA No. 26 applies only in cases of


reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certificates of title on file with the
Register of Deeds, while Section 109 of PD No. 1529 governs petitions for the
issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title which are lost or destroyed. 24
This does not mean, however, that this Court can take cognizance of respondents'
assertion that since the trial court applied the correct procedure imposed by law
herein, the trial court necessarily had jurisdiction to order the issuance of the
second
owner's
duplicate
copy
of
title.
In Manila v. Gallardo-Manzo,25 this Court explained:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of
the claim. In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction,
petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an
absolute lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no
jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition
because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter is conferred by
law.26cralawlawlibrary
Time and again, it has been consistently ruled that when the owner's duplicate
certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another
person, the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the
decision had no jurisdiction.27 Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of
loss of the original certificate.28 Thus, the fact of loss of the duplicate certificate is
jurisdictional.29
In this case, the appellate court categorically found that the owner's duplicate of
TCT No. 15296 was not, in fact, lost but was in the possession of William Billote all
along.30 While respondents Imelda and Adelaida, in their Comment, claimed they
did not know the whereabouts of the duplicate, and asserted that William even
admitted that he did not know where the same is, they never refuted such finding
of the CA. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to deviate from the same.
Accordingly, since the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but
was in the possession of William, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title. Hence, the
CA was correct in declaring the decision of the RTC as well as the second owner's
duplicate of title issued pursuant thereto a nullity. It is, therefore, the fact of the
loss or existence of the owner's duplicate certificate, and not whether the process
prescribed by applicable law was successfully complied with, that determines the
presence
or
lack
of
jurisdiction
of
the
trial
court.
Anent the findings of the CA, however, that since the subject property had already
passed into the hands of spouses Badar, innocent purchasers for value, having
bought the disputed property without notice that some other person has right or
interest over the same, the title issued to them remains valid and cannot be
nullified, the same cannot be conclusively affirmed. The appellate court ruled as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The property covered by said title, however, passed into the hands of
innocent purchasers for value in the persons of spouses Victor and
Remedios Badar, to whom TCT No. 274696 had already been issued.
When spouses Badar bought subject property, it was already covered by
TCT No. 269811 in the names of Imelda and Adelaida. Although the second
owner's duplicate of TCT No. 15296 was void the same having been issued by a
court which did not have jurisdiction to order the issuance of a new owner's copy in
lieu of an owner's duplicate which was not lost but was in the possession of
another person, (Straight Times, Inc. vs. CA, 294 SCRA 714; Easterworld Motor
Industries Corp. vs. Skunac Corp., 478 SCRA 420) and although TCT No. 269811 in
the names of Imelda Solis and Adelaida Dalope was fraudulently secured, such
facts cannot prejudice the rights of spouses Victor and Remedios Badar
absent any showing that they had any knowledge or participation in such
irregularity. Aforenamed spouses cannot be obliged to look beyond the vendor's
certificate of title which appeared to be valid on its face and devoid of any
annotation of any adverse claim. Spouses Badar appear to be purchasers in
good faith and for value as they bought the disputed property, without
notice that some other person has right or interest over the same and
paid a full price for the same at the time of the purchase or before they
had notice of any claim or interest of some other person therein (Eduarte
vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 391). No valid transfer certificate of title can issue
from a void certificate of title, unless an innocent purchaser for value has
intervened (Pineda vs. CA and Teresita Gonzales, 409 SCRA 438). Established is the
rule that the rights of an innocent purchaser for value must be respected and
protected notwithstanding the fraud employed by the sellers in securing their title
(Eduarte vs. CA, supra).31cralawlawlibrary
After a cursory examination of the aforequoted findings, this Court observes that
the conclusion that the spouses Badar were, indeed, innocent purchasers for value,
lacks sufficient basis. As can be gleaned from the foregoing, the CA merely
declared that the spouses appear to be purchasers in good faith without specifying
material evidence supporting such declarations. The fact that the subject property
was already covered by the title issued under the names of respondents Imelda
and Adelaida, by itself, does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the
spouses Badar had no knowledge of some other party's interest over the property.
While the CA cited appropriate doctrines of law, it failed to substantiate them with
factual proofs confirming the same. This Court is, therefore, not prepared to
categorically rule that spouses Badar were, indeed, innocent purchasers for value
and
are
consequently
entitled
to
the
disputed
property.
It must be recalled at this point that in a petition for the issuance of a new owner's
duplicate copy of a certificate of title in lieu of one allegedly lost, the RTC, acting
only as a land registration court, has no jurisdiction to pass upon the question of
actual ownership of the Jand covered by the lost owner's duplicate copy of the
certificate of title.32 Possession of a lost owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of
title is not necessarily equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. The
certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is merely an evidence of
title
over
a
particular
property. 33
The CA herein was, therefore, limited only to the determination of whether the trial
court had jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of a new owner's duplicate
copy of a certificate of title in lieu of the one allegedly lost. The only fact that had
to be established was whether or not the original owner's duplicate copy of a
certificate of title is still in existence. 34 Thus, the dispute regarding the issue of

ownership over the subject property as well as whether the Spouses Badar are, in
fact, purchasers in good faith and for value will have to be threshed out in a more
appropriate proceeding, specifically in Civil Case No. U-8088, where the trial court
will conduct a full-blown hearing with the parties presenting their respective
evidence to prove ownership over the subject realty, 35 and not in an action for the
issuance of the lost owner's duplicate certificate of title, nor in a proceeding to
annul
the
certificate
issued
in
consequence
thereof. 36
Accordingly, respondents' imputation of forum-shopping on the part of petitioner
for having previously filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Titles,
Documents, Recovery of Ownership and Possession docketed as Civil Case No. U8088 cannot be given ample consideration. In Demetriou v. Court of Appeals,37
cited by petitioner, We held:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Nor was the filing of such a petition forum shopping in violation of
Circular No. 28-91. Private respondents allege that in an action for
recovery of possession of the lands which they had brought against the
JB Line in the Regional Trial Court of Albay (Civil Case No. T-1590),
petitioners intervened and alleged substantially the same facts as those
alleged by them in their petition for annulment of judgment. We have gone
over petitioners' answer in intervention in that case. We find that the allegation of
forum shopping is without basis. While they indeed alleged that private
respondent had obtained a second owner's duplicate of TCT T-65878
knowing that 2/3 of the land covered by the certificate had been sold to
them and that the "2nd owner's copy should be cancelled and recalled
considering the fact that the original is in fact still existing and not lost,
"the allegation was made more for the purpose of demanding a partition,
recognizing that private respondent is the owner of 1/3 of the land.
Petitioner's intervention is thus different from their action in the Court of
Appeals which is solely for the purpose of seeking the annulment of the
judgment in CAD Case No. T-1024 granting private respondent's petition
for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of
title.38cralawlawlibrary
Similarly, the instant case is merely for the purpose of seeking the annulment of
the trial court's February 24, 2003 Decision granting the Petition for the Issuance of
New Owner's Duplicate Certificate of TCT No. 15296 while the Complaint for
Declaration of Nullity of Titles, Documents, Recovery of Ownership and Possession
in Civil Case No. U-8088 is more for the recovery of ownership and possession of
the subject property. Thus, there is no identity of causes of action which would
result in a violation of the rule against forum-shopping. In Civil Case No. U-8088, it
is incumbent on the trial court to resolve the issue of ownership over the property
in question, taking into consideration the conflicting claims alleged by the parties
supported by their corresponding pieces of evidence. In the instant case for
annulment of judgment, however, petitioner only needed to show the fact that the
owner's duplicate copy was not, in truth, missing in order to determine the lack of
jurisdiction of the trial court resulting in the annulment of judgment thereof. Hence,
the allegation of forum-shopping cannot be sustained for the cause of action in the
former
case
differs
from
that
of
the
latter.cralawred
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is PARTLY GRANTED.
The issue on the determination of ownership over the disputed property is
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 45, wherein Civil
Case No. U-8088 is pending. The Decision and Resolution, dated May 24, 2007 and
December 5, 2007, respectively, of the Court Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85583, are
PARTLY AFFIRMED, insofar as they declared the Decision dated February 24,
2003 of the Regional Trial Court in PET Case No. U-1959, as well as the second
owner's duplicate certificate of TCT No. 15296 issued therefrom, null and void.
SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

THIRD DIVISION
ENRIQUITA ANGAT and the LEGAL HEIRS OF FEDERICO
ANGAT,
Petitioners,

G.R. No. 17578


Present:

YNARES-SANTI
Chairperson,
CHICO-NAZARI
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and
BRION,* JJ.

- versus -

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Respondent.

Promulgated:
June 30, 2009

x---------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court filed by petitioners Enriquita Angat (Enriquita) and the legal
heirs of Federico Angat (Federico) against the respondent Republic of the
Philippines (Republic), assailing the Decision [1] dated 5 December 2005 and
Resolution31[2] dated 4 December 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
72740. In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the Order 32[3] dated
27 November 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XV, Naic, Cavite, in
LRC Case No. 1331, which granted the Petition for Reconstitution of the original
copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-4399 allegedly issued by the
Register of Deeds of Cavite in the names of Federico [4] and Enriquita. The Court of
Appeals denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration in its assailed Resolution
dated 4 December 2006. Petitioners are also invoking in this Petition the power of
this Court to issue a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court,
averring that the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Reconstitution in LRC Case
No. 1331.
The facts show that sometime in February 1999, Federico and Enriquita
(sister of Federico) instituted LRC Case No. 1331 by filing before the RTC a verified
Petition33[5] for the reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. T-4399 covering a
3,033,846-square meter parcel of land located in Sapang, Ternate, Cavite (subject
property), presenting the owners duplicate copy of said TCT in their possession.
Federico and Enriquita claimed that since 6 October 1955, the subject property has
been registered with the Registry of Deeds of Cavite in their names, as the true
and absolute owners thereof, under TCT No. T-4399, covered by a certain plan PSU91002. On 7 June 1959, the old Provincial Capitol Building housing the former office
of the Register of Deeds of Cavite was burned to ashes, totally destroying all the
titles and documents kept inside the office, including the original copy of TCT No. T4399.

**Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion was


designated to sit as additional member replacing
Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Raffle
dated 22 June 2009.

31[2] Rollo, p. 152.


32[3] Issued by Judge Napoleon V. Dilag; rollo,
pp. 67-81.

33[5] Annex A; rollo, pp. 29-31.

Exhibit D-1 According to Federico and Enriquita, the owners duplicate copy of TCT
No. T-4399 was intact and has been in their possession since the time of its
issuance and up to the present. The owners duplicate copy of TCT No. T-4399 has
not been delivered to any other person or entity to secure payment or performance
of any obligation nor was any transaction or agreement relative to said TCT
presented or pending before the Registry of Deeds of Cavite when its former office
was burned. No other lien or encumbrance affecting TCT No. T-4399 exists, except
the right of Federico and Enriquita therein.
Federico and Enriquita attached to their Petition for Reconstitution a
photocopy of their owners duplicate certificate of TCT No. T-4399. 34[6] They also
appended to the Petition, however, a Certification 35[7] dated 25 March 1998 issued
by the Register of Deeds of Cavite stating that:
This is to certify that per records on file in this registry, Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-4399, registered in the names of Federico A. Angat and
Enriquita A. Angat, located in the Municipality of Ternate, Cavite, containing an
area of THREE MILLION THIRTY THREE THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SIX
SQUARE METERS (3,033,846), more or less, issued on October 6, 1955 is not
existing and does not form part of our records. Based on the fact that all records
and titles were burned during the June 7, 1959 fire which razed to the ground the
Old Capitol Building of Cavite City housing the Office of the Register of Deeds we
could not now find OCT No. 391 and TCT No. T-4399 or any trace thereof and their
supporting papers for its issuance including the Entry Book on which the pertinent
documents were inscribed.
This certificate is issued upon the request of Federico A. Angat and
Enriquita A. Angat of Bo. Sapang, Municipality of Ternate, Cavite.
Finding the Petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the RTC
issued an Order dated 16 February 1999, setting the initial hearing in LRC Case No.
1331 on 10 June 1999 at 8:30 in the morning. 36[8]
In compliance with the publication and posting requirements, the RTC
Order dated 16 February 1999 was published in the 3 May 1999 and 10 May 1999
issues of the Official Gazette. The said Order was also posted on the bulletin
boards of the Provincial Capitol Building in Trece Martires City; the Municipal
Building of Ternate, Cavite; and the Barangay Hall where the subject property is
located.
Copies of the Petition and the RTC Order dated 16 February 1999 in
LRC Case No. 1331 were served by registered mail on the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), the provincial prosecutor, the Director of Lands, the Register of
Deeds of Cavite, as well as the adjoining lot owners, namely, Ambrocio Arca, heirs
of Mariano Angat, Santiago de Guia, and the Office of the Provincial Governor,
Cavite, representing Palikpikan Creek. However, all the notices to the adjoining
owners were returned unserved for the following reasons: Ambrocio Arca:
unlocated, no such name; heirs of Mariano Angat: deceased; Santiago de Guia:
unlocated, no such name; and the Office of the Provincial Governor, representing
Palikpikan Creek: refused to receive.

Exhibit D-2 Exhibit D-3 Exhibit D-4 Exhibit E


Exhibit F

Exhibit F-1 -

On 26 August 1999, Federico and Enriquita, in compliance with the


provisions of Land Registration Authority (LRA) Circular No. 35, submitted to the
LRA the survey plan of the subject property, PSU-91002, the tracing cloth plan with
two blueprint copies thereof; the technical description of the subject property; and
the Certification dated 25 March 1998 of the Register of Deeds of Cavite. 38[10] The
blueprint of the survey plan, PSU-91002, dated 27 May 1930, submitted by
Federico and Enriquita to the LRA in accordance with LRA Circular No. 35, identifies
the adjoining property owners as Ambrocio Arca, heirs of Mariano Angat, Santiago
de Guia, and the Palikpikan Creek, to whom Federico and Enriquita sent notices,
via registered mail, of the initial hearing of LRC Case No. 1331 set for 10 June
1999.
At the 9 September 1999 hearing, Enriquita and Federico presented
and marked additional documentary exhibits to establish the jurisdiction of the
RTC, namely:
Exhibit G Compliance dated 26 August 1999 showing submission of
copy of the Petition, tracing cloth plan of land subject of registration, copies of the
technical description and proof of burning the original records
Exhibit G-1 Letter to the Administrator, LRA
Exhibit G-2 Copy of Petition for Reconstitution
Exhibit G-3 Blue print copy of the Plan Psu-91002
Exhibit G-4 Technical description of the property
Exhibit G-4-a
Technical description
Exhibit G-5 Certification issued by the Register of Deeds
of Cavite
Exhibit H Certification dated 5 June 1998 issued by
the Administrator, LRA39[11]

37[9] Id. at 69-70.

38

[10] Petitioners forwarded the following


documents:(a)
Signed copy of the
Petition for Reconstitution of the original
copy of TCT No. T-4399 in the names of
petitioners (plus annexes A and B);

(b)

Tracing cloth plan of plan PSU-91002, plus


two blueprint copies of plan PSU-91002,
duly approved by the Director of Lands;

(c)

Original and two photocopies of the


technical description of the land covered by
plan PSU-91002 and TCT No. T-4399 of the
Registry of Deeds of Cavite; and

(d)

Certification issued by the Register of


Deeds of Cavite, regarding the burning of its
former office, including the original copy of
TCT No. T-4399 in the names of Federico
and Enriquita.

On 9 June 1999, the OSG entered its appearance and deputized the
Public Prosecutor of Naic, Cavite, to represent the Republic.
To establish the jurisdiction of the RTC over their Petition in LRC Case
No. 1331, Enriquita and Federico presented and marked the following exhibits at
the hearing held on 14 July 1999:
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit

A
A-1
A-2
B
B-1
B-2

Exhibit B-3 Exhibit B-4 Exhibit C


Director of Bureau of
Exhibit C-1 Exhibit C-2 Exhibit C-3 Exhibit C-4 Exhibit D -

verified petition dated 3 February 1999


Page 2 of Exhibit A
Page 3 of Exhibit A;
Order of the Court dated 16 February 1999
Return Card from the LRA
Return Card from the Register of Deeds of
Cavite
Return Card from the Provincial Prosecutor
Return Card from the Solicitor General
Certificate of Publication dated 17 May
1999 issued by the
Printing
Issue of the Official Gazette for 19 May
1999
Portion where Order was published
Issue of the Official Gazette for 10 May
1999
Portion where the Order was published
Certification dated 7 June 1999 by Michael
R. Antonio, adjoining

owner

34[6] Annex A of the Petition for Reconstitution;


id. at 32.

35[7] Issued by Vicente A. Garcia, Registrar of


Deeds, Cavite Province; id. at 33.

36[8] Annex B of the Petition for Reconstitution;


id. at 34.

Registry receipt showing notice to Ambrosio


Arca, adjoining owner
Registry receipt showing notice to Mariano
Angat
Registry receipt showing notice to Santiago
de Guia
Registry receipt showing notice to
Palikpikan Creek
Certificate of Posting issued by the Sheriff
Notice of Appearance from the Solicitor
General
Letter to Public Prosecutor in Naic, Cavite37[9]

39[11] Rollo, p. 71.

On 28 October 1999, the LRA submitted a Report 40[12] to the RTC,


relaying the following information:
COMES NOW the Land Registration Authority and the Honorable Court,
respectfully reports that:
(1)

The present petition seeks the reconstitution of the original Copy of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-4399, allegedly lost or destroyed and supposedly covering
plan PSU-91002, situated in the barrio of Sapang, Municipality of Ternate, Province
of Cavite.

(2)

From our Record Book of Decrees GLRO Record No. 51767 in which plan PSU-91002
was applied, Decree No. 642113 was issued on July 27, 1937.

(3)

The technical description of plan PSU-91002, were verified correct by this Authority
pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 26.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing information anent the property in question
is respectfully submitted for consideration in the resolution of the instant petition,
and in (sic) the Honorable Court, after notice and hearing, finds justification
pursuant to Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 26 to grant the same. Provided,
however, that no certificate of title covering the same parcel of land exist (sic) in
the office of the Register of Deeds Concerned.
On motion of the counsel of Federico and Enriquita, there being no
oppositor nor written opposition, the RTC declared a general default against the
public.
During the ex parte hearing held on 19 January 2000, Federico testified
that he was 78 years old, married, a real estate broker, and was one of the
petitioners in LRC Case No. 1331. He further testified that he had in his possession
the owners duplicate certificate of TCT No. T-4399 in his and his sister Enriquitas
names. The subject property covered by TCT No. T-4399 was previously owned by
his grandfather, Mariano Angat (Mariano), to whom was issued Original Certificate
of Title (OCT) No. 391. After Marianos death, the subject property was inherited by
his father, Gregorio Angat (Gregorio). Sometime in 1955, under unexplained
circumstances, Gregorio41[13] delivered to Federico (determined to be 34 years old
at that time) and Enriquita TCT No. T-4399, already registered in their names. The
original copy of TCT No. T-4399 was burned during the fire on 7 June 1959 at the
old Provincial Capitol Building of Cavite, housing the Registry of Deeds. He referred
to the LRA Report dated 28 October 1999 which affirmed the existence and
accuracy of the technical description of PSU-91002. He also presented the
Certification dated 18 November 1998 of the Municipal Treasurer of Ternate,
Cavite, showing that the real property taxes on the subject property for 1998 were
paid in the name of his grandfather, Mariano, under Tax Declaration No. 97-03524.
Enriquita no longer took the witness stand.
On 6 July 2000, Ternate Development Corporation (TDC) filed a Motion
for Leave to Intervene and a Complaint-in-Intervention, questioning the
authenticity and genuineness of TCT No. T-4399. It claimed that a portion of the
subject property covered by TCT No. T-4399, with an area of 1,783,084 square
meters, is owned by and already registered in the name of TDC under TCT No. (T97541) RT-19915 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite.42[14]
Federico and Enriquita opposed the Motion for Leave to Intervene of
TDC.
The RTC, in an Order dated 10 November 2000, denied the Motion for
Leave to Intervene of TDC reasoning that TDC could not challenge the validity of
TCT No. T-4399 in the reconstitution proceedings since it would constitute a
collateral attack on the title of Federico and Enriquita. The RTC declared that the
reconstitution proceedings in LRC Case No. 1331 was not the proper forum to
resolve the issue of authenticity/genuineness of title sought to be reconstituted,
nor a remedy to confirm or adjudicate ownership. 43[15] It concluded that a
separate civil action must be instituted to assail the validity of or seek the
annulment of the certificate of title since the same cannot be done in the
reconstitution proceedings where the issuance of the reconstituted title is
ministerial on the part of the court after a factual finding that the original was
indeed existing but was lost or destroyed.

legal age, Filipino citizens, both single, and both with residence and postal address
at Sapang, Ternate, Cavite, subject to existing liens and encumbrances with the
annotation at the back thereof and that said title was reconstituted and issued in
lieu of the lost one which is hereby declared null and void for all legal intents and
purposes.44[16]
The Republic appealed the RTC Order dated 27 November 2000 to the
Court of Appeals, claiming that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
reconstitution proceedings on the following grounds: (a) no showing that the
owners of the adjacent properties were duly notified according to Sections 12 and
13 of Republic Act No. 26; and (b) failure of Federico and Enriquita to prove their
valid interest in the subject property covered by TCT No. T-4399. The appeal was
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 72740.
On 5 December 2005, the Court of Appeals issued a Decision granting
the appeal of the Republic and reversing the RTC Order dated 27 November 2000.
The fallo of the Decision of the appellate court reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The petition for reconstitution of Federico A. Angat and Enriquita A. Angat, is
45
DISMISSED. [17]
The Court of Appeals sustained the arguments raised by the OSG, and
held that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the Petition for Reconstitution
because the notices of the 10 June 1999 hearing sent to the owners of the
adjoining properties via registered mail were returned without having been served
on them. The names of the owners of the adjoining properties were taken from the
survey plan made in 1930, and it was not surprising that by the time the notices
were sent in 1999, 69 years later, these persons could no longer be located. If it
were true that Federico regularly visited the subject property, he would know the
present owners of the adjoining properties and accordingly sent notices to them.
The Court of Appeals also found that Federico and Enriquita failed to prove that at
the time the original copy of TCT No. T-4399 was lost, they were the only lawful
owners of the subject property.
In a Resolution dated 3 July 2006, the Court of Appeals declared the
Decision dated 5 December 2005 final and executory for the reason that no motion
for reconsideration thereof had been filed. The appellate court pronounced:
Considering the Judicial Records Division verification report that as of
May 10, 2006, no Motion for Reconsideration nor Supreme Court Petition was filed,
the decision promulgated on December 5, 2005 has attained finality on December
30, 2005. Said decision may now be ordered entered in the Book of Entries of
Judgments.46[18]
Only after the Court of Appeals issued the aforementioned Resolution
did Federico and Enriquita file a Motion for Reconsideration dated 6 September
2006, asserting that a copy of the Decision dated 5 December 2005 was secured
by their counsel through his clerk only on 5 September 2006. They argued in their
Motion that based on Sections 2 and 3 of Republic Act No. 26, there is no
requirement that the adjoining property owners be notified in a petition for
reconstitution of the original copy of the TCT, where the reconstitution is based on
an existing owners duplicate thereof.
The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated 4 December 2006, denied
the Motion for Reconsideration of Federico and Enriquita since its Decision dated 5
December 2005 had become final and executory.
Hence, the instant Petition, where petitioners Enriquita and the heirs of
Federico47[19] raise the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING
THE PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION OF PETITIONERS FEDERICO A. ANGAT AND
ENRIQUITA A. ANGAT ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL IN ITS APPEAL.
II.

After trial and consideration of the oral and documentary evidence


submitted by Federico and Enriquita, the RTC proceeded to rule on the merits of
the Petition for Reconstitution in LRC Case No. 1331. In an Order dated 27
November 2000, the RTC granted the Petition and decreed thus:

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ALSO ERRED IN


REQUIRING THE PETITIONERS TO NOTIFY THE ADJOINING OWNERS, ALTHOUGH THE
PETITIONERS ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT.

WHEREFORE, this Court, finding the petition to be well-taken, hereby


grants the same and orders the Register of Deeds of Cavite Province to
reconstitute the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4399 as shown on
plan Psu-91002 in the name of Federico A. Angat and Enriquita A. Angat, both of

III.

44[16] Id. at 80-81.

40[12] Id. at 41.


45[17] Id. at 139.
41[13] Gregorio eventually passed away in 1967.
46[18] CA rollo, p. 130.
42[14] CA rollo, pp. 65-72.
47[19] Federico passed away prior to the filing of
43[15] Order dated 10 November 2000; rollo, pp.
62-66.

the Petition at bar, but the records do not reveal


the exact date of his death.

FINALLY, WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN


EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN THE RESPONDENT COURT DID NOT APPLY THE
CORRECT LAW IN THE PRESENT CASE WHICH IS R.A. 26, SECTIONS 2 AND 3.
Petitioners insist that the Petition for Reconstitution of the original copy
of TCT No. T-4399 filed by Federico and Enriquita complied with all the legal
requirements therefor. They claim that the Court of Appeals committed serious
error in requiring notice to adjoining property owners. Petitioners cite Puzon v. Sta.
Lucia Realty and Development, Inc.,48[20] in which the Court ruled that notice to
adjoining property owners is not necessary where the basis for reconstitution is the
owners duplicate, following Section 10, in relation to Section 9, of Republic Act No.
26. Assuming arguendo that such notice is mandatory, petitioners contend that
they were able to substantially comply with the same, only that the notices they
sent to the adjoining property owners were returned unserved.
The Republic, represented by the OSG, reiterates in its Comment the
arguments it earlier raised before the Court of Appeals. According to the OSG, the
RTC gravely erred when it assumed jurisdiction over the Petition for Reconstitution
despite failure by Federico and Enriquita to comply with the notice requirements
under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26. It should be recalled that notices to the
adjoining property owners were returned unserved for various reasons. The OSG is
adamant in its stance that nothing but strict compliance with the requirements of
the law will do, and failure to do the same prevents the RTC from acquiring
jurisdiction over the Petition for Reconstitution and voids the whole reconstitution
proceedings. Likewise, the OSG maintains that Federico and Enriquita were not
able to show that they were the only owners of the subject property at the time of
the loss of TCT No. T-4399. Finally, the OSG asserts that the Petition at bar
deserves outright dismissal considering that the appealed Decision of the Court of
Appeals had already become final and executory.
We find that there is no merit in the present Petition.
At the outset, we note that the assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals dismissing the Petition for Reconstitution of Federico and Enriquita is
already final and executory. The Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision on 5
December 2005. However, petitioners insist that the counsel of Enriquita and
Federico received a copy thereof only on 5 September 2006.49[21] A simple
examination of the records of the case would belie petitioners claim, for the
Registry Receipt50[22] and Certification51[23] from the Post Office indicate that a
copy of the said Decision was received on behalf of Federico and Enriquita by one
Melanie Angat on 14 December 2005.
Under Section 2, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court on the service of
pleadings, judgments and other papers, it is provided that if any party appeared by
counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel, or one of them, unless
service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. The court may order service
upon the party himself when the attorney of record cannot be located, either
because he gave no address or changed his given address. According to Section 9,
Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, service of judgments, final orders or
resolutions may be done either personally, by registered mail, or by publication.
The records clearly indicate that the notice and copy of the 5 December 2005
Decision, originally sent to Federico and Enriquitas counsel of record, had to be
sent, instead, to Federico and Enriquitas address by registered mail, when the
attorney of record could not be located because of a change in his given address
without notifying the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ordered that the notice
and copy of its Decision be sent to said address wherein they were received on 14
December 2005 by Melanie Angat a person of suitable age and discretion, who
undeniably bears the same surname and resided at the same address as
petitioners. In addition, the registry return receipt stated that a registered article
must not be delivered to anyone but the addressee, or upon the addressees
written order. Thus, Melanie Angat, who received the notice and copy of the 5
December 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals, was presumably able to present
a written authorization to receive the same and we can assume that the said
documents were duly received in the ordinary course of events. It is a legal
presumption, borne of wisdom and experience, that official duty has been regularly
performed; that the proceedings of a judicial tribunal are regular and valid, and
that judicial acts and duties have been and will be duly and properly performed.
The burden of proving the irregularity in official conduct, if any, is on the part of
petitioners who in this case clearly failed to discharge the same. 52[24]
Section 1, Rule 52 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a party
may file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within 15
days from notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party. Evidently, the

48[20]406 Phil. 263 (2001).


49[21] Rollo, p. 12.

filing of the Motion for Reconsideration of the 5 December 2005 Decision only on 6
September 2006 was way beyond the reglementary period for the same.
The 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration
is non-extendible.53[25] Provisions of the Rules of Court prescribing the time within
which certain acts must be done or certain proceedings taken are considered
absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly
and speedy discharge of judicial businesses. Strict compliance with such rules is
mandatory and imperative.54[26]
Without a motion for reconsideration of the 5 September 2005 Decision
having been timely filed with the Court of Appeals, Enriquita and Federico, who
was later on substituted by his heirs, had also lost their right to appeal the said
Decision to us. For purposes of determining its timeliness, a motion for
reconsideration may properly be treated as an appeal. As a step to allow an inferior
court to correct itself before review by a higher court, a motion for reconsideration
must necessarily be filed within the period to appeal. When filed beyond such
period, the motion for reconsideration ipso facto forecloses the right to appeal. 55
[27]
Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration, being filed beyond the reglementary period,
did not toll the Decision dated 5 December 2005 of the Court of Appeals from
becoming final and executory. As such, the Decision is past appellate review and
constitutes res judicata as to every matter offered and received in the proceedings
below as well as to any other matter admissible therein and which might have
been offered for that purpose.56[28]
We are without jurisdiction to modify, much less reverse, a final and
executory judgment. In Paramount Vinyl Products Corporation v. National Labor
Relations Commission,57[29] we recognized the well-settled rule that the perfection
of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory, but
jurisdictional. The failure to interpose a timely appeal (or a motion for
reconsideration) renders the assailed decision, order or award final and executory
that deprives the appellate body of any jurisdiction to alter the final judgment. The
rule is applicable indiscriminately to one and all since the rule is grounded on
fundamental consideration of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of
occasional error, the judgment of courts and award of quasi-judicial agencies must
become final at some definite date fixed by law.
Although in few instances, we have disregarded procedural lapses so
as to give due course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period, we did so
on the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice
and preventing a miscarriage thereof. We do not find such reasons extant in this
case, especially considering that petitioners herein do not admit that the Motion for
Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was filed out of time and even
attempt to mislead this Court on the true date the notice of the 5 December 2005
Decision of the Court of Appeals was received.
Clearly, we could no longer overturn the dismissal by the Court of
Appeals of the Petition for Reconstitution of Federico and Enriquita, its Decision
dated 5 December 2005, decreeing the same, being already final and executory.
However, we do find it necessary to clarify one problematic pronouncement made
by the appellate court in its Decision in order to prevent a similar confusion on the
matter in the future.
One of the reasons why the Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of
the Petition for Reconstitution of Federico and Enriquita was the lack of notice to
the adjoining property owners, which supposedly deprived the RTC of jurisdiction
over the said Petition.

53[25] Philippine Coconut Authority v. Garrido,


424 Phil. 904, 902 (2002).

54[26] Tan v. Tan, G.R. No. 133805, 29 June 2004,


433 SCRA 44, 49, citing Basco v. Court of Appeals,
383 Phil. 671, 685 (2000). See also Macabingkil v.
People's Homesite and Housing Corp., 164 Phil.
328, 339-340 (1976).

55[27] Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd v. National

50[22] CA rollo, p. 125.

Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. L-74191, 21


December 1987, 156 SCRA 740, 746.

51[23] Id. at 127.

56[28] Melotindos v. Tobias, 439 Phil. 910, 915


(2002).

52[24] Masagana Concrete Products v. National


Labor Relations Commission, 372 Phil. 459, 471472 (1999) .

57[29] G.R. No. 81200, 17 October 1990, 190


SCRA 525.

Section 110 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the


Property Registration Decree, as amended by Republic Act No. 6732, allows the
reconstitution of lost or destroyed original Torrens title, to wit:
SEC. 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title. Original
copies of certificates of titles lost or destroyed in the offices of Register of Deeds as
well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands covered by such titles shall be
reconstituted judicially in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Republic Act
No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with this Decree. The procedure relative to
administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificate prescribed in said Act
may be availed of only in case of substantial loss or destruction of land titles due
to fire, flood or other force majeure as determined by the Administrator of the Land
Registration Authority: Provided, That the number of certificates of titles lost or
damaged should be at least ten percent (10%) of the total number in the
possession of the Office of the Register of Deeds: Provided, further, that in no case
shall the number of certificates of titles lost or damaged be less than five hundred
(500).
Based on the foregoing, reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate
of title may be done judicially, in accordance with the special procedure laid down
in Republic Act No. 26; or administratively, in accordance with the provisions of
Republic Act No. 6732. By filing the Petition for Reconstitution with the RTC,
docketed as LRC Case No. 1331, Federico and Enriquita sought judicial
reconstitution of TCT No. T-4399, governed by Republic Act No. 26.
The nature of the action for reconstitution of a certificate of title under
Republic Act No. 26, entitled An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the
Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate of Title Lost or Destroyed, denotes a
restoration of the instrument, which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed, in
its original form and condition. 58[30] The purpose of such an action is merely to
have the certificate of title reproduced, after proper proceedings, in the same form
it was in when its loss or destruction occurred. 59[31] The same Republic Act No. 26
specifies the requisites to be met for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a
petition for reconstitution of a certificate of title. As we held in Ortigas & Co. Ltd.
Partnership v. Velasco,60[32] failure to comply with any of these jurisdictional
requirements for a petition for reconstitution renders the proceedings null and
void. Thus, in obtaining a new title in lieu of the lost or destroyed one, Republic Act
No. 26 laid down procedures which must be strictly followed in view of the danger
that reconstitution could be the source of anomalous titles or unscrupulously
availed of as an easy substitute for original registration of title proceedings.
Sections 2 and 3 of Republic Act No. 26 identify the sources for
reconstitution of title. Section 2 enumerates the sources for reconstitution of OCTs:
Section 2. Original Certificates of Title shall be reconstituted from such
of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
(a)

The owners duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owners, mortgagees, or lessees duplicate of the certificate of title;


(c)

A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds
or by a legal custodian thereof;

(d)

An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be,
pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued;

(e)

A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the description
of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an
authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered;
and

(f)

Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper
basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
TCTs, on the other hand, may be reconstituted from the sources
recognized under Section 3, as may be available, and in the order they are
presented:
Sec. 3.
Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such
of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
(a)
(b)
certificate of title;

The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;


The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the

(c)
A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued
by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
(d)
The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the
registry of deeds, containing the description of the property, or an authenticated

58[30] Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 356


Phil. 217, 230 (1998).

59[31] Republic of the Philippines v. Holazo, 480


Phil. 828, 838 (2004).

60[32]343 Phil. 115 (1997).

copy thereof, showing that its original had been registered, and pursuant to which
the lost or destroyed transfer certificate of title was issued;
(e)
A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the
property, the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased
or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its
original had been registered; and
(f)
Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is
sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of
title.
It is worth stressing that Federico and Enriquita sought the
reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. T-4399 based on the owners duplicate
of said TCT, a source named under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 26. The
publication, posting and notice requirements for such a petition are governed by
Section 10 in relation to Section 9 of Republic Act No. 26. Section 10 provides:
Sec.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. (Emphasis ours.)
In relation to the foregoing, the provisions of Section 9 on the
publication of the notice of the Petition for Reconstitution reads:
Section 9. x x x Thereupon, the court shall cause a notice of the
petition to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive
issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the
provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which
the land lies, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing, and after hearing,
shall determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may
require. The notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate
of title, the name of the registered owner, the names of the interested parties
appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, the location of the property, and
the date on which all persons having an interest in the property must appear and
file such claim as they may have. x x x.
It is evident from a perusal of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 26, as quoted above,
that it does not mandate that notice be specifically sent to adjoining property
owners; it only necessitated publication and posting of the notice of the Petition for
Reconstitution in accordance with Section 9 of the same Act.

Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26, 61[33] requiring notice to adjoining
property owners, are actually irrelevant to the Petition for Reconstitution filed by

61[33]

SEC. 12. Petitions for


reconstitution from sources enumerated in
Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d),
3(e), and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed
with the proper Court of First Instance, by
the registered owner, his assigns, or any
person having an interest in the property.
The petition shall state or contain, among
other things, the following: (a) that the
owners duplicate of the certificate of title
had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no coowners, mortgagees, or lessees duplicate
had been issued, or, if any had been
issued, the same had been lost or
destroyed; (c) the location, area and
boundaries of the property; (d) the nature
and description of the buildings or
improvements, if any, which do not belong
to the owner of the land, and the names
and addresses of the owners of such
buildings or improvements; (e) the names
and addresses of the occupants or persons
in possession of the property, of the
owners of the adjoining properties and of
all persons who may have any interest in
the property; (f) a detailed description of
the encumbrances, if any, affecting the
property; and (g) a statement that no
deeds or other instruments affecting the
property have been presented for
registration, or, if there be any, the
registration
thereof
has
not
been
accomplished, as yet. All the documents,
or authenticated copies thereof, to be
introduced in evidence in support to the
petition for reconstitution shall be
attached thereto and filed with the same:
Provided, That in case the reconstitution is
to be made exclusively from sources
enumerated in Section 2(f) or 3(f) of this
Act, the petition shall be further
accompanied with a plan and technical
description of the property duly approved
by the Chief of the General Land
Registration Office, [now Commission of
Land Registration] or with a certified copy
of the description taken from a prior
certificate of title covering the same
property.SEC. 13. The court shall cause a
notice of the petition, filed under the
preceding section, to be published, at the
expense of the petitioner, twice in

Federico and Enriquita considering that these provisions apply particularly to


petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated under Sections 2(c), 2(d),
2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and/or 3(f) of Republic Act No. 26.
In Puzon, we explained that when the reconstitution is based on an
extant owners duplicate TCT, the main concern is the authenticity and genuineness
of the certificate, which could best be determined or contested by the government
agencies or offices concerned. The adjoining owners or actual occupants of the
property covered by the TCT are hardly in a position to determine the genuineness
of the certificate; hence, their participation in the reconstitution proceedings is not
indispensable and notice to them is not jurisdictional.
The foregoing discourse notwithstanding, the 5 December 2005
Decision of the Court of Appeals is already final and executory, and absolutely
binds this Court, despite any errors therein. And even if it were otherwise, the error
committed by the appellate court as regards the notice requirement would not
necessarily result in a judgment favorable to petitioners.
We find that Federico and Enriquita were not able to prove that at the
time the title was lost, he and his sister were the only lawful owners of the subject
property. Federico and Enriquita claimed that the subject property was originally
owned by their grandfather, Mariano. Federico and Enriquita, however, failed to
establish the chain of transfers of the subject property from Mariano to their father,
Gregorio; and finally to them. That the transmittal of rights through succession
takes effect by operation of law, without any need for the testator or the heirs to
perform any positive act, did not necessarily exempt Federico and Enriquita from
having to prove that they became the owners of the subject property by legal
succession, to the exclusion of all others. Mariano had several children, and so did
Gregorio; hence, Mariano, as well as Gregorio, had several legal heirs who would
have likewise succeeded to the subject property.
Federico and Enriquita further alleged that they had been in possession
of the subject property since 1955. However, at the time they instituted the
reconstitution proceedings in 1999, or 44 years later, no improvements or
permanent structures could be found on the entire 300-hectare property. It is but
contrary to common human experience that a real estate broker such as Federico
would let 44 years pass by without introducing any improvements on this very vast
tract of land, which he claimed to co-own with his sister Enriquita. Incidentally, if it
were true that Federico regularly visited the 300-hectare property, then he would
have been aware who the current adjoining property owners were.
We also observe that Federico and Enriquita failed to provide any
explanation why it took them 40 years from the burning of the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Cavite on 7 June 1959, before instituting the reconstitution
proceedings. The failure of Federico and Enriquita to immediately seek the

successive issues of the Official Gazette,


and to be posted on the main entrance of
the provincial building and of the
municipal building of the municipality or
city in which the land is situated, at least
thirty days prior to the date of hearing.
The court shall likewise cause a copy of
the notice to be sent, by registered mail or
otherwise, at the expense of the
petitioner, to every person named therein
whose address is known, at least thirty
days prior to the date of hearing. Said
notice shall state, among other things, the
number of the lost or destroyed Certificate
of Title, if known, the name of the
registered owner, the names of the
occupants or persons in possession of the
property, the owners of the adjoining
properties and all other interested parties,
the location, area and boundaries of the
property, and the date on which all
persons having any interest therein must
appear and file their claim or objections to
the petition. The petitioner shall, at the
hearing, submit proof of the publication,
posting and service of the notice as
directed by the court.

reconstitution of TCT No. T-4399, and their procrastination for four decades before
actually filing their Petition, had allowed laches to attach. Laches is the negligence
or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption
that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it. 62
[34] In Heirs of Eulalio Ragua v. Court of Appeals, we denied, on the ground of
laches, therein petitioners petition for reconstitution of title, which was filed only
19 years after the original of said title was allegedly lost or destroyed. 63[35]
The real property tax receipts in the name of Federico for the years 1989 to 1998
deserve little probative value. There is no showing that real property taxes were
paid by Federico and/or Enriquita, or their alleged predecessors-in-interest prior to
1989. Despite Federico and Enriquitas claim of possession of the subject property
since 1955, Federico himself admitted that he first paid the real estate taxes on the
subject property only in 1989. Realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of
ownership but are mere indicia of possession in the concept of owners. 64[36]
Neither are realty tax payment receipts sufficient to warrant reconstitution.
The foregoing circumstances raise doubt as to the authenticity and
genuineness of the owners duplicate of TCT No. T-4399, the basis for the Petition
for Reconstitution of Federico and Enriquita. Our suspicions were, in fact, confirmed
by a Manifestation by the Acting Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite, that
the LRA report dated 28 October 1999 allegedly signed by Benjamin M. Bustos,
Reconstitution Officer and Chief, Reconstitution Division, and marked as Exhibit K,
was not the true, genuine and official report of the LRA in this case but the one
dated 14 December 1999, which was duly signed by Benjamin M. Bustos. The
Certification65[37] issued by the LRA on 14 December 1999 stated, to wit:

Furthermore, a Report dated October 28, 1999, purportedly signed by Atty.


Benjamin M. Bustos, Chief, Reconstitution Division, xerox copy hereto attached,
was presented to this Authority by Atty. Antonio L. Leachon III, Acting Register of
Deeds, Trece Martires, Province of Cavite, which upon verification from our records,
it appears that the same is spurious and not prepared/issued by this Office.66[38]
We are not persuaded that the pieces of evidence presented by Federico and
Enriquita warrant the reconstitution of TCT No. T-4399. The purpose of
reconstitution of title is to have the original title reproduced in the same form it
was in when it was lost or destroyed. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize and
verify carefully all supporting documents, deeds and certifications.
Once again, we caution the courts against the hasty and reckless grant
of petitions for reconstitution, especially when they involve vast properties, such as
in this case. And, should a petition for reconstitution be denied for lack of sufficient
basis, the petitioner is not entirely left without a remedy. He may still file an
application for confirmation of his title under the provisions of the Land
Registration Act, if he is, in fact, the lawful owner. 67[39]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review on
Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 5 December 2005 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 72740 dismissing the Petition for Reconstitution of TCT
No. T-4399, filed by Federico A. Angat and Enriquita A. Angat, is hereby
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

The Land Registration Authority to the Honorable Court respectfully


reports that:
The present petition seeks the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T4399, allegedly lost or destroyed, and supposedly covering a parcel of land (Plan
Psu-91002), situated in the Barrio of Sapang, Municipality of Ternate, Province of
Cavite, on the basis of the owners duplicate thereof. A mere reproduction of what
purports be a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4399, not certified by the
Clerk of Court, as required under LRC Circular 35, Series of 1983, was submitted to
this Authority.
In the 1st Indorsement of Engr. Alberto H. Lingao, Acting Chief, Ordinary and
Cadastral Decree Division, this Authority, dated November 26, 1999, it is stated
therein, that upon examination and verification of the above-entitled petition and
its enclosures, the following information were found, to wit:
1.
2.
3.

As per Book of Surveys on file at the Plan Examination Section, Psu-9002, situated
in the Province of Cavite was applied for registration under Record No. 51767;
As per Decree Book on file at the Ordinary Decree Section, Record No. 51767,
Cavite, was issued Decree No. 642113 on July 7, 1937; however, copy of the said
decree is not among the salvaged records of this Authority;
The technical description of Psu-91002 inscribed on the submitted xerox copy of
TCT No. T-4399 was found to be an open polygon and when plotted on MIS 9009,
1621, 9017, 9619, 6121 and 15212, several parcels of land applied under Record
Nos. N-63140, N-63142 and N-63143 were found to be inside this case. No decree
of registration have as yet been issued to the aforesaid applications.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA


Associate Justice Associate Justice

4.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing Report is respectfully submitted for the
information and guidance of the Honorable Court, with the recommendation that
the Lands Management Sector, be required to submit the Report relative to the
status of the subject parcel of land, in the instant petition.

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

Quezon City, Philippines, December 14, 1999.


Alfredo R. Enriquez
Administrator
By:
Benjamin M. Bustos
Chief, Reconstitution Division

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.

The Manifestation finds support in the Certification dated 20 March 2001, issued by
the Acting Chief of the Reconstitution Division of the LRA indicating the following:
This is to certify that a perusal from the records of this Authority, a Report dated
December 14, 1999 has been submitted to the Regional Trial Court, Branch XV,
Naic, Cavite relative to the above-entitled petition, a certified copy of which is
hereto attached for ready reference.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

62[34] Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of


Appeals, 332 Phil. 206, 218-219 (1996); Heirs of
Eulalio Ragua and Regalado v. Court of Appeals,
381 Phil. 7, 22-23 (2000).

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

63[35] Id.
64[36] Republic v. Holazo, 480 Phil. 828, 842

66[38]Records, p. 167.

(2004).

67[39]Republic v. Santua, G.R. No. 155703, 8


65[37] Records, pp. 165-166.

September 2008, 564 SCRA 331, 340-341.

G.R. No. 185604


June 13, 2013
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
vs.
EDWARD M. CAMACHO, Respondent.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before this Court is a petition1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking the reversal of the Decision 2 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87390, which affirmed the Decision 3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50 in Land Registration
Case No. V -0016.
The facts follow.
On March 6, 2003, respondent Edward M. Camacho filed a petition 4 denominated
as "Re: Petition for Reconstitution of the Original Title of O.C.T. No. (not legible) and
Issuance of Owner's Duplicate Copy" before the RTC.
In support thereof, respondent alleged that the Original Certificate of Title 5 (OCT)
sought to be reconstituted and whose number is no longer legible due to wear and
tear, is covered by Decree No. 444263, Case No. 3732, Record No. 22141 6 issued in
the name of Spouses Nicasio Lapitan and Ana Doliente (Spouses Lapitan) of Alcala,
Pangasinan. Respondent also alleged that the owners duplicate copy of the OCT is
in his possession and that he is the owner of the two parcels of land covered by the
aforementioned OCT by virtue of a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition with Absolute
Sale7 (the Deed) executed on December 26, 2002 by the heirs of Spouses Lapitan
in his favor. Said OCT covers two parcels of land located in San Juan, Alcala,
Pangasinan, (Lot No. 1) and Namulatan,8 Bautista, Pangasinan (Lot No. 2) with the
following technical descriptions:
A parcel of land (Lot No. 1, plan Psu- 53673), situated in the Barrio of San Juan,
Municipality of Alcala. Bounded on the NE. by property of Benito Ferrer; on the S.
by an irrigation ditch and property of Marcelo Monegas; and on the W. by Lot No. 2.
Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan, being S. 0 deg. 53 W., 3830.91 m. from
B. L. L. M. No. 1, Alcala; thence S. 87 deg. 22 W., 44.91 m. to point "2"; thence N. 5
deg. 25 W., 214.83 m. to point "3"; thence S. 17 deg. 06 E., 221.61 m. to the point
of beginning; containing an area of four thousand eight hundred and eighteen
square meters (4,818), more or less. All points referred to are indicated on the plan
and on the ground are marked by old P. L. S. concrete monuments; bearings true;
declination 0 deg. 40 E.; date of survey, April 19-21, 1926; and
A parcel of land (Lot No. 2, plan Psu-53673), situated in the Barrio of Namulatan,
Municipality of Bautista. Bounded on the N. by properties of Hipolito Sarmiento and
Ciriaco Dauz; on the E. by Lot No.1; and on the SW. by property of Nicasio Lapitan
vs. Felix Bacolor. Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan, being S. 2 deg. 40 W.,
3625.25 m. from B. L. L. M. No. 1, Alcala; thence N. 80 deg. 47 E., 3.50 m. to point
"2"; thence N. 86 deg. 53 E., 40.64 m. to point "3"; thence S. 5 deg. 25 E., 214.83
m. to point "4"; thence N. 16 deg. 57 W., 220.69 m. to the point of beginning;
containing an area of four thousand seven hundred and fortyfour square meters
(4,744), more or less. All points referred to are indicated on the plan and on the
ground are marked by old P. L. S. concrete monuments; bearings true; declination 0
deg. 40 E.; date of survey April 19-21, 1926.9
Respondent attached to his petition photocopies of the Deed; the OCT; Tax
Declaration No. 485810; a Certification11 dated January 13, 2003 issued by the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan stating that the file copy of
the OCT could not be found and is considered lost and beyond recovery; and
Decree No. 444263.12
Upon a Show-Cause Order13 of the RTC, respondent filed an Amended Petition 14
dated May 21, 2003, alleging that the subject properties bear no encumbrance;
that there are no improvements therein; that there are no other occupants thereof
aside from respondent; and that there are no deeds or instruments affecting the
same that had been presented for registration. He further alleged that "the land in
issue is bounded on the North by the land covered by Plan Psu-53673; on the North
by the properties of Hipolito Sarmiento and Cipriano Dauz, 15 residents of Anulid,
Alcala, Pangasinan; on the West by Lot No. 3; and on the Southwest by the
properties of Nicasio Lapitan vs. Felix Bacolor who are also residents of Anulid,
Alcala, Pangasinan."16 Respodent intimated that he desires to have the office/file
copy of the OCT reconstituted based on the Technical Description provided by the
Chief of the General Land Registration Office and thereafter, to be issued a second
owners duplicate copy in lieu of the old one.
On May 30, 2003, the RTC issued an Order 17 finding the respondents petition
sufficient in form and substance and setting the same for hearing on September
29, 2003. The said Order is herein faithfully reproduced as follows:
ORDER
In a verified petition, petitioner Edward Camacho, as vendee of the parcels of land
located in San Juan, Alcala, Pangasinan, and Namulatan, Bautista, Pangasinan,
covered by Decree No. 444263, Case No. 3732, G.L.R.O. No. 22141, formerly issued
in the names of spouses Nicasio Lapitan and Ana Doliente, of Alcala, Pangasinan,
under an Original Certificate of Title the number of which is not legible due to wear
and tear, seeks an order directing the proper authorities and the Registrar of
Deeds, Lingayen, Pangasinan, to reconstitute the office file copy of said Original
Certificate of Title based on the technical description thereof and to issue a second
owners duplicate copy of the same in lieu of the old one.
Being sufficient in form and substance, the petition is set for hearing on September
29, 2003, at 8:30 in the morning, before this Court, on which date, time and place,
all interested persons are enjoined to appear and show cause why the same should
not be granted.
Let this order be published twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette at the
expense of the petitioner.
Likewise, let copies of this Order and of the Amended Petition be posted in
conspicuous places in the Provincial Capitol and the Registry of Deeds, both in
Lingayen, Pangasinan, the Municipal Halls of Alcala and Bautista, Pangasinan, and
the Barangay Halls of San Juan, Alcala, Pangasinan and Namulatan, Bautista,
Pangasinan, and the Office of the Solicitor General, Manila.
Finally, furnish copies of this Order, by registered mail, at the expense of the
petitioner, to the following:
1. Hipolito Sarmiento;
2. Cipriano Dauz;
3. Nicasio Lapitan; and
4. Felix Bacolor.
all of Brgy. Anulid, Alcala, Pangasinan.
SO ORDERED.18
Thereafter, copies of the said order were posted on seven bulletin boards: at the
Pangasinan Provincial Capitol Building, at the Alcala and Bautista Municipal
Buildings, at the San Juan and Namulatan Barangay Halls, at the office of the
Register of Deeds in Lingayen, Pangasinan and at the RTC. 19 The order was also

published twice in the Official Gazette: on August 18, 2003 (Volume 99, Number
33, Page 5206), and on August 25, 2003 (Volume 99, Number 34, Page 5376).20
However, on January 22, 2004, respondent filed his second Amended Petition 21
averring that "the land in issue is bounded on the North by the land of Ricardo
Acosta, a resident of Laoac, Alcala, Pangasinan; on the South by the property of
Greg Viray,22 a resident of Laoac, Alcala, Pangasinan; on the West by the land of
Roque Lanuza,23 a resident of Laoac, Alcala, Pangasinan; and on the East by the lot
of Juan Cabuan,24 a resident of Laoac, Alcala, Pangasinan." 25 On March 4, 2004,
respondent filed a Motion26 with Leave of Court to admit his second Amended
Petition, which the RTC granted in its Order 27 dated March 4, 2004, directing therein
that the persons mentioned in the second Amended Petition be notified by
registered mail.
During the hearing, the following witnesses were presented: (1) respondent 28 who,
among others, presented the original owners duplicate copy of the OCT before the
RTC;29 (2) the tenant of the adjoining lot (Western portion) Roque Lanuza who
testified that he tilled the adjoining lots, that he has personal knowledge that
respondent bought said lots from the heirs of the Spouses Lapitan, and that he was
present when the lots were surveyed; 30 (3) adjoining owners Gregorio Viray 31 and
Ricardo Acosta32 who testified that they were notified of the proceedings and
interposed no objection to the petition; and (4) Arthur David (Mr. David), Records
Custodian of the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan who testified that Atty.
Rufino Moreno, Jr., Registrar of Deeds had issued the Certification that the OCT
subject of the petition can no longer be found in the Office of the Register of
Deeds.33 In his subsequent testimony, Mr. David reported to the RTC that the name
of Nicasio Lapitan cannot be located in the Index Cards of titles as some are
missing and destroyed. Upon questioning, Mr. David testified that the number of
the OCT sought to be reconstituted may be referred to in the decree issued in the
name of Nicasio Lapitan which allegedly could be found in the Land Registration
Authority (LRA).34
On May 23, 2005, the LRA rendered a Report 35 addressed to the RTC which
pertinently stated, to wit:
(1) The present amended petition seeks the reconstitution of Original Certificate of
Title No. (not legible), allegedly lost or destroyed and supposedly covering Lot Nos.
1 and 2 of plan Psu-53673, situated in the Barrio of San Juan, Municipality of Alcala
and Barrio of Namulatan, Municipality of Bautista, respectively, Province of
Pangasinan, on the basis of the owners duplicate thereof, a reproduction of which,
duly certified by Atty. Stela Marie Q. Gandia-Asuncion, Clerk of Court VI, was
submitted to this Authority;
(2) Our records show that Decree No. 444263 was issued on July 18, 1931 covering
Lot Nos. 1 and 2 of plan Psu-53673, in Cadastral Case No. 3732, GLRO Record No.
22141 in favor of the Spouses Nicasio Lapitan and Ana Doliente;
(3) The technical descriptions of Lot Nos. 1 and 2 of plan Psu-53673, appearing on
the reproduction of Original Certificate of Title No. (not legible) were found correct
after examination and due computation and when plotted in the Municipal Index
Sheet No. 451/1027, do not appear to overlap previously plotted/decreed
properties in the area.
The government prosecutor deputized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) 36
participated in the trial of the case but did not present controverting evidence. 37
On March 9, 2006, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision, 38 the dispositive portion
of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court, finding the documentary as well as the parole (sic)
evidence adduced to be adequate and sufficiently persuasive to warrant the
reconstitution of the Original Certificate of Title covered by Decree No. 444263,
Cadastral Case No. 3732, GLRO Record No. 22141, and pursuant to Section 110, PD
No. 1529 and Sections 2 (d) and 15 of RA No. 26, hereby directs the Register of
Deeds at Lingayen, Pangasinan, to reconstitute said original certificate of title on
the basis of the decree of registration thereof, without prejudice to the annotation
of any subsisting rights or interests not duly noted in these proceedings, if any, and
the right of the Administrator, Land Registration Authority, as provided for in Sec.
16, Land Registration Commission (now NALTDRA) Circular No. 35, dated June 13,
1983, and to issue a new owner's duplicate copy thereof.
SO ORDERED.39
On April 4, 2006, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed a
Motion for Reconsideration 40 which was denied by the RTC in its Resolution 41 dated
May 24, 2006 for lack of merit. The RTC opined that while the number of the OCT is
not legible, a close examination of the entries therein reveals that it is an authentic
OCT per the LRAs findings. Moreover, the RTC held that respondent complied with
Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26 42 considering that the reconstitution in this
case is based on the owners duplicate copy of the OCT.
Petitioner appealed to the CA. 43 By Decision44 dated July 31, 2008, the CA affirmed
the RTCs findings and ruling, holding that respondents petition is governed by
Section 10 of R.A. No. 26 since the reconstitution proceedings is based on the
owners duplicate copy of the OCT itself. The CA, invoking this Courts ruling in
Puzon v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., 45 concluded that notice to the
owners of the adjoining lots is not required. Moreover, the CA opined that Decree
No. 444263 issued on July 18, 1931 covering Lot Nos. 1 and 2 in the name of
Spouses Lapitan exists in the Record Book of the LRA as stated in the LRAs Report.
The CA ratiocinated that the LRAs Report on said Decree tallies with the subject
OCT leading to no other conclusion than that these documents cover the same
subject lots. Petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration 46 which the CA, however,
denied in its Resolution47 dated November 20, 2008.
Hence, this petition based on the following grounds, to wit:
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE TRIAL COURT
CORRECTLY GRANTED THE PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION EVEN IF THE ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE OFTITLE NUMBER IS NOT LEGIBLE; and
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE TRIAL COURT
CORRECTLY GRANTED THE PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SECOND OWNERS
DUPLICATE.48
Petitioner through the OSG avers that respondent does not have any basis for
reconstitution because the OCT per se is of doubtful existence, as respondent
himself does not know its number. According to the OSG, this fact alone negates
the merits of the petition for reconstitution as held by this Court in Tahanan
Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al. 49 Moreover, the OSG highlights
that the Deed, the tax declaration for the year 2003, and the Register of Deeds
Certification all indicated that the number of the OCT is not legible. The OSG also
stresses that nowhere in the records did the LRA acknowledge that it has on file
the original copy of Decree No. 444263 from which the alleged OCT was issued and
that said Decree did not at all establish the existence and previous issuance of the
OCT sought to be reconstituted. The OSG notes that the RTC erred, as found in the
dispositive portion of its decision, in basing the reconstitution of the OCT under
Section 2(d) of R.A. No. 26. Finally, the OSG submits that respondent cannot seek
the issuance of the second owners duplicate of the OCT because he himself

alleged in his own petition that he is in possession of the same owners duplicate
First. The Notice of Hearing issued and published does not align with the in rem
certificate.50
character of the reconstitution proceedings and the mandatory nature of the
On the other hand, respondent counters that the OSGs reliance in Tahanan and
requirements under R.A. No. 26. 59 There is a mortal insufficiency in the publication
Republic of the Phils. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 51 is unavailing. He argues
when the missing title was merely identified as "OCT No. (not legible)" which is
that in Tahanan, the petitioner therein merely relied on documents other than the
non-compliant with Section 9 of R.A. No. 26.
owners duplicate copy of the certificate of title, while in Republic, this Court ruled
Moreover, while the LRA confirmed the issuance of Decree No. 444263 in its
that reconstitution cannot be based on statutes which do not confer title over the
Report, it perplexes this Court that the LRA failed to state that an OCT was actually
property. Respondent claims that in these aforementioned cases, petitioners
issued and mention the number of the OCT sought to be reconstituted. In Republic
therein do not have other sources to support their respective petitions for
of the Phils. v. El Gobierno De Las Islas Filipinas, 60 this Court denied the petition for
reconstitution while in this case the owners duplicate copy of the OCT sought to
reconstitution of title despite the existence of a decree:
be reconstituted truly exists albeit its number is not legible. Respondent submits
We also find insufficient the index of decree showing that Decree No. 365835 was
that the documentary as well as the parol evidence he adduced are adequate to
issued for Lot No. 1499, as a basis for reconstitution. We noticed that the name of
warrant the reconstitution of the OCT as it is covered by Decree No. 444263.
the applicant as well as the date of the issuance of such decree was illegible. While
Respondent also submits that since there is a valid title in this case, there is legal
Decree No. 365835 existed in the Record Book of Cadastral Lots in the Land
basis for the issuance of the owners duplicate copy of the reconstituted title. 52
Registration Authority as stated in the Report submitted by it, however, the same
Notwithstanding the numerous contentions raised by both parties, this Court finds
report did not state the number of the original certificate of title, which is not
that the fundamental issue to be resolved in this case is whether the RTC properly
sufficient evidence in support of the petition for reconstitution. The deed of
acquired and was invested with jurisdiction in the first place to hear and decide
extrajudicial declaration of heirs with sale executed by Aguinaldo and Restituto
Land Registration Case No. V-0016 in the light of the strict and mandatory
Tumulak Perez and respondent on February 12, 1979 did not also mention the
provisions of R.A. No. 26.
number of the original certificate of title but only Tax Declaration No. 00393. As we
We resolve the sole issue in the negative.
held in Tahanan Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, the absence of any
53
Section 110 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property
document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title and
Registration Decree, as amended by R.A. No. 6732, 54 allows the reconstitution of
the date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of
lost or destroyed original Torrens title either judicially, in accordance with the
such petition. (Emphasis supplied.)
special procedure laid down in R.A. No. 26, or administratively, in accordance with
Second. Respondent and the RTC overlooked that there are two parcels of land in
55
the provisions of R.A. No. 6732.
this case. It is glaring that respondent had to amend his petition for reconstitution
As the case set before this Court is one for judicial reconstitution, we limit the
twice in order to state therein the names of the adjoining owners. Most
discussion to the pertinent law, which is R.A. No. 26, and the applicable
importantly, the Notice of Hearing issued by the RTC failed to state the names of
jurisprudence.
interested parties appearing in the OCT sought to be reconstituted, particularly the
The nature of the proceeding for reconstitution of a certificate of title under R.A.
adjoining owners to Lot No. 1, namely, Benito Ferrer and Marcelo Monegas. While it
No. 26 denotes a restoration of the instrument, which is supposed to have been
is true that notices need not be sent to the adjoining owners in this case since this
lost or destroyed, in its original form and condition. The purpose of such a
is not required under Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 26 as enunciated in our ruling in
proceeding is merely to have the certificate of title reproduced, after proper
Puzon, it is imperative, however, that the notice should specify the names of said
proceedings, in the same form it was in when its loss or destruction occurred. The
interested parties so named in the title sought to be reconstituted. No less than
same R.A. No. 26 specifies the requisites to be met for the trial court to acquire
Section 9 of R.A. No. 26 mandates it.
jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution of a certificate of title. Failure to
Well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that where the words of a statute are clear,
comply with any of these jurisdictional requirements for a petition for
plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied
reconstitution renders the proceedings null and void. Thus, in obtaining a new title
without attempted interpretation. Verba legis non est recedendum. From the words
in lieu of the lost or destroyed one, R.A. No. 26 laid down procedures which must
of a statute there should be no departure. 61 In view of these lapses, the RTC did not
be strictly followed in view of the danger that reconstitution could be the source of
acquire jurisdiction to proceed with the case since the mandatory manner or mode
anomalous titles or unscrupulously availed of as an easy substitute for original
of obtaining jurisdiction as prescribed by R.A. No. 26 had not been strictly followed,
56
registration of title proceedings.
thereby rendering the proceedings utterly null and void. 62 As such, while petitioner
It bears reiterating that respondents quest for judicial reconstitution in this case is
overlooked these jurisdictional infirmities and failed to incorporate them as
anchored on the owners duplicate copy of said OCT a source for reconstitution of
additional issues in its own petition, this Court has sufficient authority to pass upon
title provided under Section 2 (a) of R.A. No. 26, which provides in full as follows:
and resolve the same since they affect jurisdiction.63
SEC. 2. Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources
Apropos is our ruling in Castillo v. Republic64 where we held that:
hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
We cannot simply dismiss these defects as "technical." Liberal construction of the
a. The owners duplicate of the certificate of title;
Rules of Court does not apply to land registration cases. Indeed, to further
b. The co-owners, mortgagees, or lessees duplicate of the certificate of title;
underscore the mandatory character of these jurisdictional requirements, the Rules
c. A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of
of Court do not apply to land registration cases. In all cases where the authority of
deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
the courts to proceed is conferred by a statute, and when the manner of obtaining
d. An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may
jurisdiction is prescribed by a statute, the mode of proceeding is mandatory, and
be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued;
must be strictly complied with, or the proceeding will be utterly void. When the
e. A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the
trial court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it lacks authority over the
description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or
whole case and all its aspects. All the proceedings before the trial court, including
encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original
its order granting the petition for reconstitution, are void for lack of jurisdiction. 65
had been registered; and
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated
f. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper
July 31, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87390 is REVERSED and
basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title. (Emphasis
SET ASIDE. The petition for reconstitution docketed as LRC No. V-0016, RTC,
supplied.)
Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50, is DISMISSED.
In this aspect, the CA was correct in invoking our ruling in Puzon v. Sta. Lucia
No pronouncement as to costs.
57
Realty and Development, Inc., that notices to owners of adjoining lots and actual
SO ORDERED.
occupants of the subject property are not mandatory and jurisdictional in a petition
MARTIN
S.
VILLARAMA,
JR.
for judicial reconstitution of destroyed certificate of title when the source for such
Associate Justice
reconstitution is the owners duplicate copy thereof since the publication, posting
WE CONCUR:
and notice requirements for such a petition are governed by Section 10 in relation
MARIA
LOURDES
P.
A.
SERENO
to Section 9 of R.A. No. 26. Section 10 provides:
Chief
Justice
SEC. 10. Nothing hereinbefore provided shall prevent any registered owner or
Chairperson
person in interest from filing the petition mentioned in section five of this Act
TERESITA
J.
LEONARDO-DE
LUCAS
P.
BERSAMIN
directly with the proper Court of First Instance, based on sources enumerated in
CASTRO
Associate Justice
sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and/or 4(a) of this Act: Provided, however, That the
Associate Justice
court shall cause a notice of the petition, before hearing and granting the same, to
BIENVENIDO
L.
REYES
be published in the manner stated in section nine hereof: And, provided, further,
Associate Justice
That certificates of title reconstituted pursuant to this section shall not be subject
to the encumbrance referred to in section seven of this Act. (Emphasis supplied.)
Correlatively, the pertinent provisions of Section 9 on the publication, posting and
the contents of the notice of the Petition for Reconstitution clearly mandate:
SEC. 9. x x x Thereupon, the court shall cause a notice of the petition to be
published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the
Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building
SECOND DIVISION
and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land lies, at
least thirty days prior to the date of hearing, and after hearing, shall determine
the OF AGRARIAN G.R. No. 160560
DEPARTMENT
petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. The notice
REFORM, represented by
shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title, the name
SECRETARY ROBERTO M.
of the registered owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in the
PAGDANGANAN,
reconstituted certificate of title, the location of the property, and the date on which
Petitioner, Present:
all persons having an interest in the property must appear and file such claim as
they may have. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
- versus - PUNO, J., Chairman,
In sum, Section 10, in relation to Section 9, requires that 30 days before the date of
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
hearing, (1) a notice be published in two successive issues of the Official Gazette
CALLEJO, SR.,
at the expense of the petitioner, and that (2) such notice be posted at the main
entrances of the provincial building and of the municipal hall where the property is
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
located. The notice shall state the following: (1) the number of the certificate of
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
title, (2) the name of the registered owner, (3) the names of the interested parties
Respondent.
appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, (4) the location of the property,
Promulgated:
and (5) the date on which all persons having an interest in the property, must
appear and file such claims as they may have.58
July 29, 2005
Verily, while the CA invoked the appropriate provisions of R.A. No. 26, it failed,
however, to take note that Section 9 thereof mandatorily requires that the notice
shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title and the
DECISION
names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title. In
this case, the RTC failed to indicate these jurisdictional facts in the notice.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:


This is a petition for review of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 62136 reversing the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Balayan, Batangas, in LRC Case No. P-1079. The RTC granted the petition of the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. T-13352 under the name of Ceferino Ascue, married to Felisa
Ramos.
On September 4, 1996, the DAR filed a petition with the RTC of Batangas for the

Emiliano Nayat and Apolonio Limjoco, Jr. and others, a resident also of Prenza, Lian,
Batangas; that he notified the landowner by issuing Notice of Coverage to the
estate of Ceferino Ascue C/O Eusebia Garcia (Exh. F); that a certification was
issued by the Register of Deeds to the effect that TCT No. T-13352 in the name of
Ceferino Ascue is not available among the records on file in their office (Exh. G),
and, furthermore, the DAR cannot implement such coverage if there is no original
certificate of title in the name of Ceferino Ascue; that the property is free and clear
of all liens and encumbrances, except as follows:
Entry No. 47269: Contrato de Molienda executed in favor of Central Azucarera Don
Pedro. Contrato de Molineda celebrada y entre Sofronio Garcia, del Municipio
Balayan, Batangas, y la Central Azucarera Don Pedro, sobre los torrenos descritos
en esto titulo. Este contrato comensora con la zafra 1938-1939 y terminara con la
zafra 1956-1957, con sujecion a las domas condiciones estipulados en el contrato
el cual fue ratifica de ante el Notario Publico Sr. Marcelo Ermita, Doc. 21, Page 68,
libro XII, Serie de 1939.
Fecha del instrumato, Feb. 10, 1939
Fecha dela inscription, March 3, 1939, at 11:30 a.m.

reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. T-13352 covering a 539,849-square


meter parcel of land located in Barrio Prenza, Lian, Batangas. It alleged that the

that the witness identified the xerox copy of original owners duplicate copy of TCT
No. T-13352 marked as Exh. H to be the same document subject of this petition.[5]

petitioner is a government entity of the Republic of the Philippines while Ceferino


The Notice of Coverage[6] dated September 12, 1989, adverted to by Limjuco, was
Ascue, a resident of Balayan, Batangas, is the registered owner in fee simple of a
addressed to the Estate of Ceferino Ascue c/o Eusebia Garcia, copy furnished to
real property covered by the TCT No. T-13352 issued by the Register of Deeds of
Benjamin Garcia III. Likewise on record is the 1 st Indorsement by the Municipal
Nasugbu, Batangas. The petition contained a technical description of the property
Agrarian Reform Officer to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of the documents
which was designated as Lot 50 Pcs-611. It averred that the said lot is the subject
relative to the petition. A Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No.
of compulsory acquisition or voluntary offer to sell by the DAR for distribution to
00215248 had been issued to the farmer beneficiaries, in the name of Emiliano
qualified beneficiaries.
Nayat, et al.[7]
The DAR further alleged that the original copy of TCT No. T-13352 was lost, burned
On July 7, 1998, the trial court rendered judgment granting the petition. The fallo of
and destroyed while being kept in Ascues office, and that no owners or co-owners
the decision reads:
duplicate copy of said title had been issued in lieu thereof. The names and
addresses of the persons in possession of the property and the adjoining

property is free from all liens and encumbrances, except for the one which was

WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be meritorious, the same is granted. The


Register of Deeds, Nasugbu Branch Registry, Nasugbu, Batangas, is directed to
reconstitute the lost title, TCT No. T-13352 in the name of the registered owner
Ceferino Ascue and to issue an owners duplicate copy based on the reconstituted
one in the name of Ceferino Ascue which contains a memorandum of the fact that
the same are entitled to like faith and credit of the lost/destroyed one upon
payment of the fees prescribed by law.[8]

annotated at the back of TCT No. T-13352, and that no other instruments affecting

The OSG received a copy of the said decision on July 20, 1998, and had until

the property have been presented for registration in the Office of the Register of

August 4, 1998 within which to appeal the decision. However, the OSG filed its

Deeds. The petitioner then prayed that, after due proceedings, the court order the

Notice of Appeal by registered mail only on August 5, 1998. The OSG alleged in its

reconstitution of TCT No. T-13352.

brief, as appellant, that:

properties, and those who may have any interest therein were specified as follows:
Emiliano Nayat, et al., Prenza, Lian, Batangas. Finally, the DAR averred that the

I.
A Certification[3] from the Register of Deeds that TCT No. T-13352 is
not among the available records on file with it was attached to the petition as an

THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE


RECONSTITUTION OF TCT NO. T-13352.

integral part thereof. The petition, likewise, included a photocopy of what appears

II.

to be TCT No. T-13352 which was issued by the Register of Deeds on October 25,

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE TRIAL COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE
INSTANT CASE, IT NONETHELESS ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED THE RECONSTITUTION
OF TCT NO. T-13352 ON THE BASIS OF A PHOTOCOPY OF THE OWNERS DUPLICATE.
[9]

1957[4] in the name of Ceferino Ascue.

JURISDICTION

TO

ORDER

THE

The trial court found the petition to be sufficient in form and substance. It directed
The DAR failed to file its appellees brief. The CA rendered judgment on
that copies of the order setting the initial hearing of the petition be served to the
November 29, 2001, reversing the appealed decision and ordering the RTC to
Solicitor General, the Register of Deeds, the Land Registration Commission, and
dismiss the DARs petition. The appellate court held that the RTC had no jurisdiction
the Provincial Prosecutor. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) did not file any
over the petition and that, in any event, the petitioner failed to prove the merits of
opposition to the petition.
its petition.
The DAR presented Manuel Limjuco, Jr. from the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office
The DAR filed a motion for the reconsideration of the decision,
of Lian, Batangas, as its sole witness. His testimony was summarized by the RTC,
claiming, inter alia, that the OSGs appeal from the RTC decision was filed one day
as follows:
late which was subsequently admitted by the OSG in its comment. It claimed,
[H]e was the incumbent MARO of Nasugbu, Batangas, since 1994 up to the
present; that he was previously assigned at DAR Lian, Batangas; that his area of
coverage at Lian, Batangas is Municipality of Lian, Batangas; that his duties and
functions as MARO of Nasugbu, Batangas, is to implement the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program; that Ceferino Ascue, a resident of Balayan, Batangas, is
the registered owner in fee simple of certain real property covered by Original
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-13352 issued by the Register of Deeds of
Nasugbu, Batangas, the original of which title was lost/burned and destroyed while
being kept in their office; that he knows this property because when he was the
MARO at Lian, Batangas, this property was covered by compulsory acquisition
under R.A. 6657; that this landholding is an agricultural land devoted to sugarcane
production, with an area of 53.9849 has. located at Prenza, Lian, Batangas, as
evidenced by Tax Declaration (Exh. E); that this landholding is tenanted by

however, that the tardiness was based on the erroneous belief that the month of
July has only 30 days instead of 31 days. The CA denied the motion for
reconsideration. It ruled that the delay in filing the appeal was not fatal because
the RTCs decision was, nonetheless, void for lack of jurisdiction. In any event, the
CA held that the motion was barren of merit.

Petitioner DAR filed its petition for review with this Court, alleging that
the CA erred:
1. WHEN IT FAILED/REFUSED TO RULE ON THE ISSUE OF TIMELINESS
OF THE APPEAL OF OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT (RESPONDENT HEREIN), A
REQUIREMENT THAT IS NOT ONLY MANDATORY BUT JURISDICTIONAL AS WELL.
2. WHEN IT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT BELOW ON
THE GROUND THAT IT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE FOR
FAILING TO STRICTLY AND LITERALLY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED JURISDICTIONAL
FACTS.
3. WHEN IT HELD THAT THE DAR IS NOT A PROPER PARTY IN THE
RECONSTITUTION; AND
4. WHEN IT RULED THAT MERE MACHINE COPY OF THE TITLE IS,
DESPITE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ADMISSIBILITY UNDER THE
RULES, AN INFERIOR EVIDENCE AND NOT ADMISSIBLE.[10]
On the first issue, the petitioner avers that the CA erred when it failed
to dismiss the respondents appeal on the ground that it was filed one day late. The
RTC decision had, thus, become final and executory and beyond the appellate
courts jurisdiction to modify or reverse. The petitioner posits that the requirement
that an aggrieved party should perfect its appeal within the period thereof is
mandatory; hence, failure to comply with said requisite is fatal. Moreover, the
petitioner insists that the OSGs pretext that it erred in believing that July has only
30 days instead of 31 days, even if true, is not excusable negligence. Lastly, the
petitioner maintains that, even if the RTCs decision is void for lack of jurisdiction,
the remedy of the respondent was to file a petition under Rule 47 of the Rules of
Court in the CA to annul said decision, and not to appeal under Rule 41 of the said
rules.
The petition is denied.
We agree with the petitioners contention that, through negligence, the
OSG filed the respondents notice of appeal with the RTC one day beyond the
reglementary period therefor. The pretext that the OSG overlooked the fact that
the month of July has 31 days instead of 30 days is incongruous and preposterous.
The OSG has the responsibility of monitoring and keeping track of the period of
time left to file an appeal.[11] In Republic v. Peralta,[12] the Court emphasized
that:
In a case of recent vintage, the Court took to task the OSG for its
lackadaisical attitude and complacency in the handling of its cases for the
government and reminded the OSG that:
just like other members of the Bar, the canons under the Code of
Professional Responsibility apply with equal force on lawyers in government service
in the discharge of their official tasks. These ethical duties are rendered even more
exacting as to them because, as government counsel, they have the added duty to
abide by the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public
service. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the OSG, as part of the government
bureaucracy, to perform and discharge its duties with the highest degree of
professionalism, intelligence and skill and to extend prompt, courteous and
adequate service to the public.[13]

We are convinced that the OSGs explanation that it overlooked the

by the Commissioner of Land Registration, or with a certified copy of the


description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property.

correct number of days comprising the month of July is merely an afterthought.


The OSG admitted that it filed the notice of appeal out of time. However, it was

Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 provides the special requisites and procedure

only after the petitioner had called the CAs attention to the delay in filing the

that must be complied with before the court may acquire jurisdiction over a

appeal that the OSG mentioned its mistake. The decision of the RTC had become

petition for reconstitution.

final and executory and, consequently, the CA had no appellate jurisdiction over
the respondents appeal.
The petitioner is also correct in reiterating case law that the perfection
of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only
mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to perfect that appeal renders the
judgment final and executory. The finality of a judgment becomes a fact upon the
lapse of the reglementary period to appeal, if no appeal is perfected. [14] Such
judgment, whether right or wrong, can no longer be modified or reversed by the

Section 13. The Court shall cause a notice of the petition, filed under
the preceding section, to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in
successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of
the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in
which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. The
court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail or
otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein whose
address is known, at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. Said notice
shall state, among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of
title if known, the name of the registered owner, the names of the occupants or
persons in possession of the property, the owners of the adjoining properties and
all other interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the property, and
the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file
their claim or objections to the petition. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit
proof of publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the court.

appellate court.
Thus, the petitioner must prove compliance with the following:
However, the Court, in several cases, relaxed procedural rules even of
the most mandatory character in the interest of substantial justice. Thus, in Yao v.
Court of Appeals,[15] the Court ruled:
In the interest of substantial justice, procedural rules of the most
mandatory character in terms of compliance, may be relaxed. In other words, if
strict adherence to the letter of the law would result in absurdity and manifest
injustice or where the merit of a partys cause is apparent and outweighs
consideration of non-compliance with certain formal requirements, procedural rules
should definitely be liberally construed. A party-litigant is to be given the fullest
opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him
to lose life, liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities. We therefore withhold
legal approbation on the RTC decision at bar for its palpable failure to comply with
the constitutional and legal mandates thereby denying YAO of his day in court. We
also remind all magistrates to heed the demand of Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution. It is their solemn and paramount duty to uphold the Constitution and
the principles enshrined therein, lest they be lost in the nitty-gritty of their
everyday judicial work.[16]
In Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corporation v. NLRC,[17] the Court
held that in view of the factual circumstances and legal merits of the case, the
NLRC should have accepted the appeal from the decision of the POEA, albeit a day
after the reglementary period for filing appeals. In the said case, the Court found
that the POEA had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action to enforce a
foreign judgment.[18]
In Pimentel, Jr. v. Llorente,[19] the Court noted that it had given due
course to appeals even though filed six, four, and three days late, in the interest of
justice and equity.
The CAs ruling that the RTC decision and all the proceedings therein
are null and void for lack of jurisdiction is correct.
Section 12, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, provides that:
SEC. 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in
Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed
with the proper Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any
person having an interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain,
among other things, the following: (a) that the owners duplicate of the certificate
of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no co-owners, mortgagees or lessees
duplicate had been issued, or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or
destroyed; (c) the location, area and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and
description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which do not belong to the
owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or
improvements; (e) the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and of all
persons who may have interest in the property; (f) a detailed prescription of the
encumbrances, if any, affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or
other instruments affecting the property have been presented for registration, or, if
there be any, the registration thereof has not been accomplished, as yet. All the
documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in
support to the petition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with
the same: Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from
sources enumerated in Section 2(f) or 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further
accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved

1. [That] the notice of the petition must be published, at the expense


of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and posted on
the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the
municipality or city in which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the
date of hearing;
2. [That] the notice state among other things, the number of the lost or
destroyed certificates of title if known, the name of the registered owner, the name
of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owner of the
adjoining properties and all other interested parties, the location, area and
boundaries of the property, and the date on which all persons having any interest
therein must appear and file their claim of objection to the petition;

3. [That] a copy of the notice also be sent, by registered mail or


otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein ( i.e. the
occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owner of the adjoining
properties and all other interested parties) whose address is known at least thirty
days prior to the date of the hearing; and
4. [That] at the hearing, petitioner submits proof of publication, posting
and service of the notice as directed by the court.[20]
Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is conferred
only by the Constitution or by law. In all cases where the authority to proceed is
conferred by a statute and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory, the
same must be complied with, or the proceedings will be utterly void.[21] It cannot
be acquired, waived, enlarged or diminished by any act or omission of the parties
or acquiescence by the courts.[22] Failure to comply with the jurisdictional
requirements renders the decision approving the reconstitution and all proceedings
therein null and void.[23]
In this case, the property had been placed under the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, and a CLOA had been issued to the farmer
beneficiaries who were in possession of said property. Said beneficiaries, thus,
became the owners of the portions of the landholdings allotted to each of them,
conditioned upon the payment and receipt by the landowners, the spouses Ascue,
of the corresponding payments or deposit by the DAR of the compensation with an
accessible bank.[24] The CLOA shall be recorded and registered in the Register of
Deeds and annotated on the TCT of the landowner.[25] However, the petitioner
failed to mention in its petition the names and addresses of said beneficiaries who
were in possession of the property, other than Emiliano Nayat, as well as the
names and addresses of the owners of lots adjoining the subject property.
Moreover, not one of the farmer beneficiaries was served with the copy of the
notice of hearing of the petition; hence, not one of them appeared before the court
during the scheduled hearing of said petition.
There is, likewise, no showing that Ceferino Ascue had been paid the
compensation for his property. When the petition was filed with the RTC, Ceferino
Ascue was already dead. The administrator of his estate or his heirs, including his
surviving spouse, Felisa Ramos, should have been served copies of the notice of
hearing issued by the RTC. However, no such copies of the orders were served on
them. Because of the petitioners failure to cause the service of the notice of
hearing to all the possessors and anyone having interest in the property, the
proceedings in the RTC, including its decision, are null and void.[26] In Alabang
Development Corporation v. Valenzuela,[27] this Court emphasized that:
Upon examination of the subject petition for reconstitution, the Court
notes that some essential data required in Section 12 and Section 13 of Republic
Act 26 have been omitted: the nature and description of the buildings or
improvements, which do not belong to the owner of the land, and the names and
addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements, and the names and
addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, of the owners
of the adjoining properties and of all persons who may have any interest in the
property. Neither do these data appear in the Notice of Hearing, such that no
adjoining owner, occupant or possessor was ever served a copy thereof by
registered mail or otherwise. On these glaring conspicuous omissions, the Court
repeats its pronouncement in the Bernal case, to wit.

And since the above data do not appear in the Amended Petition, the
same data do not also appear in the Notice of Hearing of the petition published in
the Official Gazette. Patently, the provisions of Section 12 which enumerates
mandatorily the contents of the Petition for Reconstitution and Section 13 which
similarly require the contents of the Notice have not been complied with. In view of
these multiple omissions which constitute non-compliance with the above-cited
sections of the Act, We rule that said defects have not invested the Court with the
authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the case because the manner or mode of
obtaining jurisdiction as prescribed by the statute which is mandatory has not
been strictly followed, thereby rendering all proceedings utterly null and void. We
hold that the mere Notice that all interested parties are hereby cited to appear and
show cause if any they have why said petition should not be granted is not
sufficient for the law must be interpreted strictly; it must be applied rigorously,
with exactness and precision. We agree with the ruling of the trial court granting
the motion to amend the original petition provided all the requisites for publication
and posting of notices be complied with, it appearing that the amendment is quite
substantial in nature. As We pointed above, respondent Demetria Sta. Maria Vda.
de Bernal failed to comply with all the requirements for publication and posting of
notices, which failure is fatal to the jurisdiction of the Court. (Italics supplied)

TCT No. 1861. However, the petitioner failed to adduce in evidence a certified true
copy of the document which became the basis of the issuance of TCT No. T-13352.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack
of merit.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 173525
Petitioner,

The rule on notification to the possessor or one having interest in the


property whose title is sought to be reconstituted is laid down explicitly in Manila
Railroad Company vs. Hon. Jose M. Moya, et al., L-17913, June 22,1965, 14 SCRA
358, thus:
Where a petition for reconstitution would have the certificates of title
reconstituted from the plans and technical descriptions of the lots involved, which
sources may fall properly under Section 3(e) or 3(f) of Republic Act No. 26, the
possessor thereof or the one who is known to have an interest in the property
should be sent a copy of the notice of the petition at the expense of petitioner,
pursuant to Section 13 of the said Act.
If no notice of the date of a hearing of a reconstitution case is served
on a possessor or one having interest in the property involved, he is deprived of his
day in court and the order of reconstitution is null and void, even if otherwise the
said order should have been final and executory.
Under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26, notice by publication is not
sufficient but such notice must be actually sent or delivered to parties affected by
the petition for reconstitution.
The rule We have stated and quoted from Manila Railroad Company vs.
Hon. Jose M. Moya, et al., supra, is rightly so because one who seeks the
reconstitution of his title to the property is duty-bound to know who are the
occupants, possessors thereof, or persons having an interest in the property
involved, specially where the property is so vast and situated in a suitable
residential and commercial location, where buildings and improvements have been
or are being constructed openly and publicly. As stated earlier, indispensable
parties have appeared, claiming ownership, possession, and valuable interests in
the property, which are not only numerous but also patently conspicuous that
private respondent cannot feign ignorance, much less unawareness, nor blindness
as to their existence of her or within her claimed property. (Emphasis supplied).

Present:

QUISUMBING, J.,
- versus -

Chairperson,
CARPIO

MORALES,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO, and
GERTRUDES B. VERZOSA, VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Respondent.
Promulgated:
March 28, 2008
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
TINGA, J.:
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed this Petition 68[1] dated 22
August 2006, assailing the Decision69[2] of the Court of Appeals dated 3 April 2006,

The appellate court also held that the petitioner is not the proper party
to file the petition and, even if it were so, it failed to adduce competent evidence
for the reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. T-13352, thus:
Petitioner-appellees basis for reconstitution of the original as well as the owners
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-13352 is a mere photocopy of the alleged lost title. It is
an elementary principle of the law of evidence that the best evidence of which the
case in its nature is susceptible and which is within the power of the party to
produce or is capable of being produce (sic) must always be adduced in proof of
every disputed fact. Machine copies of original documents are, at most, secondary
evidence which are inadmissible if the offeror failed to prove any of the exceptions
provided in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and to establish the conditions
for their admissibility.
A petition for reconstitution based on a mere photocopy of the
certificate of title is only regarded as a reconstitution based on plainly inferior
evidence. In view of this omission, We rule that petitioner-appellee has not
presented competent evidence as basis for reconstituting the original, as well as
the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. T-13352.[28]
The ruling of the CA is correct. The petitioner is not the registered
owner of the property and has no interest over the same. It filed the petition in
order to have the CLOA annotated at the dorsal portion of the reconstituted title,
and cause the transfer of the torrens title of the property in favor of the farmer
beneficiaries upon payment of the requisite compensation therefor.
Indeed, the petitioner averred, in its petition, that no owners duplicate
copy of TCT No. T-13352 had been issued or, if any, the same had been lost or
destroyed. The petitioner has not explained why it had a photocopy[29] of the

and its Resolution70[3] dated 10 July 2006, in CA-G.R. CV No. 73890. The
questioned Decision affirmed the trial courts Decision dated 19 November 2001,
directing the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 140606.
The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are as follows:
On January 3, 2001, Gertrudes B. Verzosa (herein petitioner-appellee)
filed a petition for reconstitution of the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 140606 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, docketed as LRC Case
No. Q-13686 (01), which was raffled to Branch 218 of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City. In support thereof, petitioner-appellee alleged that she and Edna
Verzosa Garcia are the registered owners of a parcel of land situated in the
University District, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 140606 and that to her has
been allotted Lot 7-B thereof by virtue of a court order. However, the original copy
of their title was burned when the Quezon City Hall was gutted by fire on June 11,
1988 while the owners Duplicate Certificate thereof was lost as shown by the
Affidavit of Loss executed by her co-owner, Edna Garcia. She also claimed that the
said title was in full force and effect and that no deed or other instrument involving
the said property has been presented or pending registration with the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City, at the time the title was destroyed. Moreoever,
plaintiff-appellee posited that the current real estate taxes on the property have
been paid. Thus, she prays that after due notice, publication and hearing, the
subject title be reconstituted and thereafter, a second owners duplicate copy be
issued to the registered owners.
On January 15, 2001, the RTC, finding the petition to be sufficient in
form and substance, set the case for hearing on May 18, 2001 and ordered the
publication of its Order in the Official Gazette as well as its posting at the Main
Entrance of the Quezon City Hall, the Bulletin Board of the Branch and the Office of

68

owners duplicate of said title, or under what circumstance it was able to obtain
possession thereof. The records also show that the Land Management Bureau

69

(formerly Bureau of Lands) has no available survey data of Lot 50, Pcs-611.[30] It
appears that TCT No. T-13352 was issued on October 25, 1957, and cancelled by

70

the Clerk of Court, RTC, Quezon City, at least 30 days prior to the date of hearing.
It likewise required the service of copies of the said order on the Register of Deeds
of Quezon City, Administrator of Land Registration Authority, Director of Land
Management Bureau, Office of the Solicitor General, City Prosecutor of Quezon
City, City Legal Officer of Quezon City and all the adjoining property owners,
enjoining them and/or their representatives to appear and/or intervene in the case.

sufficiency of the evidence presented by respondent because it did not raise a


On the scheduled date of hearing on May 18, 2001, only the
representative from the Office of the Solicitor General appeared. Petitioners
counsel presented and marked his evidence to establish the jurisdictional
requirements. Thereafter, on her counsels motion, petitioner-appellee was allowed
to present further evidence before the Commissioner. On the date set for the
presentation of petitioners evidence on June 7, 2001, however, the hearing was
reset on the ground, among others, of the need to amend the petition to implead
petitioners co-owner, Edna Garcia, who is also her sister. On July 18, 2001,
petitioner filed a motion for leave to present evidence ex-parte without impleading
her co-owner, citing the irreconcilable differences between them which the RTC
granted in the Resolution dated August 22, 2001. Thereafter, or on September 13,
2001, petitioner presented her evidence and formally offered the same.
In the meantime, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) submitted to
the RTC a Report dated October 30, 2001 stating that:

timely objection to the evidence before the trial court.


The OSG filed a Reply 73[6] dated 15 November 2007, contending that
the doctrine of estoppel does not operate against the government for the acts of
its agents, and reiterating that a petition for reconstitution based on a mere
photocopy of the certificate of title is only regarded as reconstitution petition
based on plainly inferior evidence.
We shall first dispose of the issue of estoppel.
It is a well-settled rule that the state cannot be put in estoppel by the
mistakes or errors of its officials or agents, especially absent any showing that it
had dealt capriciously or dishonorably with its citizens. 74[7] Thus, the OSGs failure
to raise an effective objection to the evidence presented in support of the petition

xxx

does not bar petitioner from assailing the propriety of the reconstitution ordered by

(2) Our records show that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 140606
covering Lot 7, Block 8 of the consolidation-subdivision plan (LRC) Pes-1011.
registered in the name of Edna Verzosa Garcia and Gertrudes B. Verzosa (sic) is
also applied for Administrative Reconstitution Proceedings (Republic Act 6732),
however, no Administrative Order has as yet been issued for the aforesaid TCT.

the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.


Having said this, we shall now proceed to the heart of this case.
The reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate of title may be done

(3) The plan and technical description of Lot 7, Block 8 of the


consolidation-subdivision plan (LRC) Pes-1011, were verified correct by the
Authority to represent the aforesaid lot and the same have been approved under
(LRA) PR-18966 pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 26.

judicially, in accordance with the special procedure laid down in R.A. No. 26, or
administratively, in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6732. The petition in
this case sought the judicial reconstitution of TCT No. 140606.

xxx
On November 19, 2001, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision
directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to reconstitute TCT No. 140606.
Hence, the instant appeal by the Oppositor-Appellant, the Republic of the
Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, based on the following
assignment of errors, to wit:

Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 26 enumerates the sources upon which the


reconstitution of transfer certificates of title shall be based. It provides:
Sec. 3.Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of
the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
(a)

(b)
certificate of title;
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PRESENT PETITION FOR
RECONSTITUTION BECAUSE APPELLEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY
REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 26 IN RELATION TO SECTION 110 OF P.D. NO. 1529.

II

The owner's duplicate of the certificate of titles;


The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the

(c)
A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued
by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
(d)
The deed of transfer or other document on file in the
registry of deeds, containing the description of the property, or an authenticated
copy thereof, showing that its original had been registered, and pursuant to which
the lost or destroyed transfer certificate of title was issued;

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION OF


THE ORIGINAL COPY OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 140606 FOR FAILURE
OF APPELLEE TO PRESENT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT SHE IS THE
OWNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND.71[4]

According to the Court of Appeals, the petition for reconstitution was


filed under Sec. 3(f) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26 which grants the court the
authority to consider other documents which it finds sufficient and proper bases for
the reconstitution prayed for. In this case, the documentary evidence presented by
respondent Gertrudes B. Verzosa, coupled with the Report submitted by the Land
Registration Authority (LRA) confirming the previous existence of TCT No. 140606,
is sufficient basis to grant the reconstitution.
The OSG, however, argues that the photocopy of TCT No. 140606
presented by respondent is not among the documentary evidence required by R.A.
No. 26 and cannot be considered competent evidence, especially because
respondent did not prove that she had exerted honest efforts to secure the
documents enumerated in the law and had failed to find them.
Respondents Comment/Opposition to Petition 72[5] dated 7 June 2007,
for the most part, merely reproduces the pertinent portions of the Decision of the
appellate court, but adds that petitioner is already estopped from assailing the

71

73

72

74

(e)
A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the
property, the description of which is given in said documents, is mortgaged, leased
or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its
original had been registered; and
(f)
Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is
sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost destroyed certificate of title.

In relation to the foregoing, Sec. 12 of the same law provides:

SEC. 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in


Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed
with the proper Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any
person having an interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain,
among other things, the following: (a) that the owners duplicate of the certificate
of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no co-owners, mortgagees or lessees
duplicate had been issued, or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or
destroyed; (c) the location, area and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and
description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which do not belong to the
owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or
improvements; (e) the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and of all
persons who may have interest in the property; (f) a detailed decription of the
encumbrances, if any, affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or
other instruments affecting the property have been presented for registration, or, if
there be any, the registration thereof has not been accomplished, as yet. All the
documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in
support to the petition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with
the same: Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from
sources enumerated in Section 2(f) or 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further
accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved
by the Commissioner of Land Registration, or with a certified copy of the
description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property.

document lies within the judicial discretion of the trial court under all the
circumstances of the particular case.
The petition for reconstitution, in this case, was accompanied by the
following documents:

Ultimately, the Court reinstated the decision of the trial court because
of the failure of the Spouses Mateo to satisfactorily show that the original of the

1.

a copy of TCT No. 140606;

2.

the Certification from the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City that the original copy
thereof was among those burned during the fire that razed the Quezon City Hall on
June 11, 1988;

transfer certificate of title sought to be reconstituted had been lost or is no longer

3.

a certified copy of the Affidavit of Loss executed by respondents co-owner, Edna V.


Garcia, attesting to the loss of the same;

4.

the duly approved technical description and survey plan of the subject property;

5.

the Order dated December 3, 1999 issued by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 93;
and

6.

the corresponding Tax Declaration and Tax Receipts. [8]

available, as well as the illegibility of the photocopy presented.


Although the records of this case do not disclose that the trial court
and the Court of Appeals consciously passed upon the admissibility of the
photocopy presented by respondent, the latter did submit several documents to
prove the existence, execution and contents of the certificate of title sought to be

75

reconstituted. Among these are the photocopy of TCT No. 140606; the certification
from the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City that the original of the certificate was
among those burned in the fire that razed the City Hall on June 11, 1988; the
technical description and survey plan of the property; the tax declaration and tax
receipts; and the report submitted by the LRA confirming the previous existence of
TCT No. 140606.

Among the sources enumerated in Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 26, the owners
duplicate of the transfer certificate of title is given primacy because such

Respondent also duly proved the loss of the owners copy of the

document is, by all accounts, an exact reproduction of the original copy of the

certificate through the Affidavit of Loss dated December 29, 1988 executed by her

transfer certificate of title. It is required, however, that the owners duplicate

sister, Dr. Edna V. Garcia.

certificate itself, and not a mere photocopy thereof, be presented to the court. This
is to preclude any question as to the genuineness and authenticity of the owners

The foregoing documents on record already constitute sufficient bases

duplicate certificate and bar the possibility of reconstitution based on a fraudulent

for reconstituting the lost certificate of title, even without the photocopy of the title

or forged owners duplicate certificate.76[9]

which is disparaged by petitioner as plainly inferior evidence.79[12]

In this case, only a photocopy of the owners duplicate was presented

Notably, the LRA report states that, [T]he plan and technical

to the court. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agree, however, that the

description of Lot 7, Block 8 of the consolidation-subdivision plan (LRC) Pcs-1011,

petition may be treated as one filed under Sec. 3(f) of R.A. No. 26. Even petitioner

were verified correct by this Authority to represent the aforesaid lot and the same

concedes this point, but argues that the rule on admission of secondary evidence

have been approved under (LRA) PR-18966 pursuant to the provisions of Section

under Sec. 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court should have first been complied with.

12 of Republic Act No. 26. 80[13] The report also mentions that the approved plan
and technical description may be used as bases for the inscription of the technical

While, indeed, the petition for reconstitution may be considered as

description

on

the

reconstituted

certificate. 81[14]

The

plan

and

technical

having been filed under Sec. 3(f) of R.A. No. 26, the photocopy of the owners

description, furthermore, contain the notations of the LRC that they have been

certificate of title presented by respondent in support of her petition is still

previously plotted under the same TCT No. (140606) sought to be reconstituted. 82

considered secondary evidence. As such, it is inadmissible unless respondent

[15]

proves any of the exceptions provided in Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and
establishes the conditions for their admissibility under Section 5 of the same rule. 77
[10]

Petitioner fusses over what appears to be a disparity in the technical


description reflected in the certificate of title sought to be reconstituted, which
states the land area to be 441 square meters, and the technical description

In Republic v. Mateo,78[11] the Spouses Lorenzo and Feliciana Mateo

indicated in respondents Annex E, which states the land area to be only 221 sq m.

filed a petition for the reconstitution of the original and owners duplicate copy of

However, it is obvious from Annex E, which petitioner incidentally marked as its

Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-38769. In support of the petition, the Spouses

own Exhibit 1, that even before the original of the title was gutted by fire in 1988,

Mateo presented, among others, a photocopy of the lost title. The trial court denied

the portion of TCT No. 140606 pertaining to respondent had already been the

reconstitution. The Court of Appeals, however, declared that the trial court erred in

subject of a subdivision survey dated 11 June 1984. This document adequately

not giving weight to the photocopy of the owners duplicate certificate of title and

explains the 220-sq m disparity between the land area reflected in TCT No. 140606

ruled that the requirements of the Rules of Court as regards the introduction of

and that stated in Annex E.

secondary evidence (as an exception to the best evidence rule) had been complied
with.

It is correct, as petitioner avers, that courts must exercise the greatest


caution in entertaining petitions for reconstitution of destroyed or lost certificates
The Court explained the order of presentation of secondary evidence

of title. In Republic v. Holazo,83[16] the Court warned that:

under Sec. 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court as existence, execution, loss, contents.
The order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court. The
sufficiency of the proof offered as a predicate for the admission of an allegedly lost

79

75

80

76

81

77

82

78

83

The tampering of genuine certificates of title and the issuance of fake


ones are a widespread malaise that has seriously threatened the very stability of
the Torrens system. Worse, the courts have been, at times, unwitting accomplices
in these acts of corruption. In Alabang, supra, we sounded this admonition:

x x x We can take judicial notice of innumerable litigations and


controversies that have been spawned by the reckless and hasty grant of such
reconstitution of alleged lost or destroyed titles as well as of the numerous
purchasers who have been victimized only to find that the lands purchased by
them were covered by forged or fake titles or their areas simply expanded through
table surveys with the cooperation of unscrupulous officials.
However, this caveat should not be taken to the extent of depriving a
person who had already fully complied with the jurisdictional requirements set
forth in R.A. No. 26 from being granted the reconstitution prayed for. When a court,
after hearing of a petition for reconstitution, finds that the evidence presented is
sufficient and proper to grant the same, that the petitioner therein is the registered
owner of the property, and that the certificate sought to be reconstituted was in
force at the time it was lost, it becomes the duty of the court to issue the order of
reconstitution. This duty is mandatory. The law does not give the court discretion
to deny the reconstitution if all the basic requirements have been complied with. 84
[17]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 3 April 2006 and its Resolution dated 10 July 2006 are AFFIRMED. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

84

You might also like