ALABANG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. HON.

Act cannot be the subject of petitions for reconstitution of

VALENZUELA (Presiding Judge) and PASCUAL, et. al.
G.R. No. L-54094 August 30, l982
FACTS:
This case originated from a petition for reconstitution of
title by now respondents Pascual, et. al in which they
allege that they are the real owners of the subject land
“Alabang Hills Village Subdivision”. The CFI (now RTC)
granted such reconstitution of title. Hence, this petition
for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioner Alabang
Development Corporation (ADC).
Petitioner ADC alleged that they are the registered
owners of the subject land controversy as evidenced by
Transfer Certificate of Titles and that they are in open,
actual, adverse, continuous, notorious and uninterrupted
possession of the subject land since 1969. ADC further
alleged that the reconstitution case by Pascual, et. al. was
filed only in 1977, where they sought to reconstitute a lost
certificate of title, original and owner’s duplicate copy,
allegedly lost or destroyed over 30 years earlier in the last
World War II. Further, that ADC being actual possessors
and registered owners were not served with notice of the
hearing of the petition for reconstitution in violation of
R.A. 26.
allegedly lost or destroyed titles filed by third parties
without first securing by final judgment
the cancellation of such existing titles. The very concept
of stability and indefeasibility of titles covered under the
Torrens System of registration rules out as anathema the
issuance of two certificates of title over the same land to
two different holders thereof. Furthermore, the courts
must likewise make sure that indispensable parties, i.e.
the actual owners and possessors of the lands involved,
are duly served with actual and personal notice of the
petition (not by mere general publication), particularly
where the lands involved constitute prime developed
commercial land including a part of the South
Superhighway. The courts Fortiori, such proceedings for
"reconstitution" without actual notice to the duly
registered owners and holders of Torrens Titles to
the land are null and void. Applicants, land officials
and judges who disregard these basic and fundamental
principles will be held duly accountable therefor.
Hence, the subject judgment of the lower court ordering
the register of deeds the alleged certificate of title,
original and owner's duplicate copy, is hereby annulled
and set aside, and the petition for reconstitution is
ordered dismissed.

ISSUE:

Should the reconstitution of the title be allowed?

RULING:

No. Courts 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.

In the case at hand, the Supreme Court ruled that courts

must exercise the greatest caution in entertaining such
petitions for allegedly lost certificate of title particularly
as in this case that Pascual, et. al filed for reconstitution
only in 1977, more than 30 years after the alleged lost or
destruction of the alleged certificate of title in last World
War II. Considering this, the lower court has indeed been
reckless and hasty in the grant of such reconstitution.

The Court stresses once more that lands already covered

by duly issued existing Torrens titles which become
incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from
their issuance under section 38 of the land Registration