1. LIGON VS. CA, GR NO. 107751, 1 JUNE 199S FACTS: Respondent Iglesia ni Kristo (INK) fled with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for specifc performance with damages against the Islamic irectorate of the !hilippines (I!)" RESPONDENT INK ALLEGATIONS: that #y $irtue of an %#solute eed of &ale dated '( %pril )*+* I! sold to it two (') parcels of land located at Tandang &ora, -arrio Culiat, Quezon City, #oth of which I! is the registered owner" The parties stipulated in the deed of sale that the I! shall underta.e to e$ict all s/uatters and illegal occupants in the property within forty0f$e (12) days from the e3ecution of the contract" I! failed to fulfll this o#ligation" 4ence INK prayed that the trial court order I! to comply with its o#ligation of clearing the su#5ect lots of illegal occupants and to pay damages to INK" IDP ALLEGATIONS: that it was INK which $iolated the contract #y delaying the payment of the purchase price and prayed that the contract of sale #e rescinded and re$o.ed" INK filed a 67TI7N 87R !%RTI%9 &:66%R; <:=6>NT on the ground that there was actually no genuine issue as to any material fact" 7n )' &eptem#er )**) the trial court rendered partial 5udgment, and on ? 7cto#er )**) an amended partial 5udgment granting the reliefs prayed for #y INK e3cept the prayer for damages which was to #e resol$ed later" RESPONDENT INK fled a motion in the same case praying that petitioner 9eticia 9igon, who was in possession of the certifcates of title o$er the properties as mo!"#"$$ of I!, #e directed to surrender the certifcates to the Register of eeds of Quezon City for the registration of the %#solute eed of &ale in its name" INK alleged that the document could not #e registered #ecause of the refusal and@or failure of petitioner to deli$er the certifcates of title despite repeated re/uests" PETITIONER LIGON fled an opposition to the motion on the ground that the I! was not ser$ed copy of the motion, and the ownership of the INK o$er the property was still in issue since rescission was sought #y the I! as a counterclaim" &he prayed that the motion #e denied, %&! '(o&)* +! %$ "#,!$*, the Register of eeds #e directed after registration to deli$er the ownerAs duplicate copies of the new certifcates of title to her" PETITIONER -)$* # S&..)$m$,!#) O..o'+!+o, /uestioning the 5urisdiction of the trial court #ecause the motion in$ol$ed the registra#ility of the document of sale, and she was not made a party to the main case" TRIAL COURT granted the motion of INK and ordered petitioner to surrender to INK the ownerAs copy of RT0'B2') ()?(2B?) and RT0'B2'( ()?BB)B) in o.$, /o&! for the registration of the %#solute eed of &ale in the latterAs name and the annotation of the mortgage e3ecuted in fa$or of petitioner on the new transfer certifcates of title to #e issued to INK" on motion of petitioner 9igon, the trial court $/o,'+*$$* its order #y directing her to deli$er the certifcates of title to the Register of eeds of Quezon City" PETITIONER fled a petition for certiorari with the COURT OF APPEALS &ee.ing the annulment of the two (') orders" -ut was dismissed" orders of the trial court aCrmed SC PETITIONALLEGING that T0E TRIAL COURT ERRED: in ruling that it had 5urisdiction o$er petitionerD in upholding the orders of the trial court e$en as they $iolated the rule prohi#iting splitting of a single cause of action and forum0shoppingD in holding that INK is the owner of the property and entitled to registration of its ownershipD and, in holding that INK has a superior right to the possession of the ownerAs copies of the certifcates of title" IDP +,!$1$,$* alleging that prior to the issuance #y the trial court of the order of ' 6arch )**', its legal -oard of Trustees fled a motion for inter$ention informing said court that the sale of the properties was not e3ecuted #y it #ut was made possi#le #y a fa.e -oard of Trustees, hence, T0E SALE IS VOID. The trial court denied the motion since 5urisdiction o$er the incident properly #elonged to the &ecurities and >3change Commission (&>C)" Conforma#ly therewith, I! #rought the matter #efore the &>C which later declared that the sale of the properties was VOID. Thus, I! #an.s on this fa$ora#le decision in similarly see.ing the nullifcation of the /uestioned orders of the trial court" ISSUE: 20ET0ER OR NOT T0E TC 0AS JURISDICTION OVER T0E PETITIONER 34ES5 20ET0ER OR NOT T0E MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMAR4 JUDGMENT S0OULD 6E GRANTED 34ES5 &ince it is a mere incident to the case fled #y INK and since it does not pre5udice 9igonEs rights as mortgagee" To grant the petition and compel INK to fle a new action in order to o#tain the same reliefs it as.ed in the motion #efore the trial court is to encourage litigations where no su#stantial rights are pre5udiced 0ELD: APPLICA6LE LA2 REGISTRATION OF VOLUNTAR4 INSTRUMENT :nder our land registration law, no $oluntary instrument shall #e registered #y the Register of eeds UNLESS the ownerAs duplicate certifcate is presented together with such instrument, e3cept in some cases or upon order of the court for cause shown" In case the person in possession of the duplicate certifcates refuses or fails to surrender the same to the Register of eeds so that a $oluntary document may #e registered and a new certifcate issued, &ec" )(?, Chapter )(, of !"" No" )2'* clearly statesF Sec. 107. Surrender of withheld duplicate certifcates. Where it is necessary to issue a new certifcate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owner's duplicate certifcate of title, the party in interest may fle a petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person withholding the duplicate certifcate to surrender the same and direct the entry of a new certifcate or memorandum upon such surrender. f the person withholding the duplicate certifcate is not amenable to the process of the court, or if for any reason the outstanding owner's duplicate certifcate cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certifcate of title in lieu thereof. !uch new, certifcate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate. RTC 0AS JURISDICTION -efore the enactment of !"" No" )2'* otherwise .nown as the !roperty Registration ecree, the fom$ )#7, A/! No. 899 otherwise .nown as the 9and Registration %ct, and all 5urisprudence interpreting the former law (#* $'!#%)+'($* !(#! '&mm#: $)+$f' '&/( #' #, #/!+o, !o /om.$) !($ '&$,*$ of o7,$;' *&.)+/#!$ /$!+-/#!$ of !+!)$ !o !($ R$"+'!$ of D$$*' /o&)* o,): %$ -)$* 7+!( #,* "#,!$* %: !($ R$"+o,#) T+#) Co&! '+!!+," #' # )#,* $"+'!#!+o, /o&! +f !($$ 7#' &,#,+m+!: #mo," !($ .#!+$' o !($$ 7#' ,o #*1$'$ /)#+m o '$+o&' o%<$/!+o, o, !($ .#! of #,: .#!: +, +,!$$'!, o!($7+'$, +f !($ /#'$ %$/#m$ /o,!$,!+o&' #,* /o,!o1$'+#) +! '(o&)* %$ !($'($* o&! +, #, o*+,#: #/!+o, o +, !($ /#'$ 7($$ !($ +,/+*$,! .o.$): %$)o,"$*" :nder &ec" ' of !"" No" )2'*, it is now pro$ided that GCourts of 8irst Instance (now Regional Trial Courts) shall ha$e e3clusi$e 5urisdiction o$er all applications for original registration of titles to lands, including impro$ements and interest !($$+, #,* o1$ #)) .$!+!+o,' -)$* #f!$ o+"+,#) $"+'!#!+o, of !+!)$, 7+!( .o7$ !o ($# #,* *$!$m+,$ #)) =&$'!+o,' #+'+," &.o, '&/( #..)+/#!+o,' o .$!+!+o,'.> The a#o$e pro$ision has eliminated the distinction #etween the general 5urisdiction $ested in the regional trial court and the limited 5urisdiction conferred upon it #y the former law when acting merely as a cadastral court" %imed at a$oiding multiplicity of suits the change has simplifed registration proceedings #y conferring upon the regional trial courts the authority to act not only on applications for original registration #ut also o$er all petitions fled after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all /uestions arising upon such applications or petitions" The principal action fled #y INK in Ci$il Case No" Q0 *(0B*H? #efore the trial court was for specifc performance with damages #ased on a document of sale" &uch action was well within the e3clusi$e 5urisdictions of the Regional Trial Court" Ihen I!, the defendant in the trial court, did not /uestion the genuineness and $alidity of said deed of sale and its o#ligations thereunder, the summary 5udgment issued #y the court granting the reliefs sought #y INK was also an e3ercise of its general 5urisdiction" ?. MOTION TO COMPEL T0E 0OLDER OF T0E DUPLICATE COT TO SURRENDER T0E SAME TO RD NECESSAR4 INCIDENT TO T0E CASE 4ence, when INK fled a motion for the issuance of an order from the same court to compel the holder of the duplicate certifcates of title to surrender the same to the Register of eeds for the registration of the deed of sale su#5ect of the principal action, !($ mo!+o, 7#' # ,$/$''#: +,/+*$,! !o !($ m#+, /#'$" Ihen the sale of the property was upheld #y the court in its 5udgment and the defendant was directed to comply with its terms and conditions, the right of INK to ha$e the same registered with the Register of eeds could not #e disregarded" To assert and en5oy its right, INK should #e allowed to '$$@ !($ #+* of !($ /o&! !o *+$/! !($ '&$,*$ of !($ /$!+-/#!$' of !+!)$" &ince Regional Trial Courts are courts of general 5urisdiction, they may therefore ta.e cognizance of this case pursuant to such 5urisdiction" >$en while &ec" )(? of !"" )2'* spea.s of a petition which can #e fled #y one who wants to compel another to surrender the certifcates of title to the Register of eeds, this does not preclude a party to a pending case to include as incident therein the relief stated under &ec" )(?, especially if the su#5ect certifcates of title to #e surrendered are intimately connected with the su#5ect matter of the principal action" This principle is #ased on e3pediency and in accordance with the policy against multiplicity of suits" SURRENDERING OF CERT 64 LIGON DOES NOT PREJUDICE 0ER RIG0T AS MORTGAGEE. LIEN SU6SISTS. The records of the case show that the su#sisting mortgage lien of petitioner appears in the certifcates of title Nos" 'B2'( and 'B2')" 4ence, the order of the trial court directing the surrender of the certifcates to the Register of eeds in order that the deed of sale in fa$or of INK can #e registered, cannot in any way pre5udice her rights and interests as a mortgagee of the lots" %ny lien annotated on the pre$ious certifcates of title which su#sists should #e incorporated in or carried o$er to the new transfer certifcates of title" This is true e$en in the case of a real estate mortgage #ecause pursuant to %rt" ')'B of the Ci$il Code it directly and immediately su#5ects the property upon which it is imposed, whoe$er the possessor may #e, to the fulfllment of the o#ligation for whose security it was constituted" It is insepara#le from the property mortgaged as it is a right in rem J a lien on the property whoe$er its owner may #e" It su#sists notwithstanding a change in ownershipD in short, the personality of the owner is disregarded" Thus, all su#se/uent purchasers must respect the mortgage whether the transfer to them #e with or without the consent of the mortgagee, for such mortgage until discharged follows the property" It is clear therefore that the surrender #y petitioner of the certifcates of title to the Register of eeds as ordered #y the trial court will not create any su#stantial in5ustice to her" To grant the petition and compel INK to fle a new action in order to o#tain the same reliefs it as.ed in the motion #efore the trial court is to encourage litigations where no su#stantial rights are pre5udiced" SC AFFIRMED CA ?. DEL PRADO VS. CA6ALLERO, GR NO.189??5, A MARC0 ?010 FACTS: CADASTRAL CASE JUDGMENT 64 JUDGE RE4ES RTC CE6U ad5udicated in fa$or of &pouses %ntonio 9" Ca#allero and 9eonarda -" Ca#allero se$eral parcels of land situated in =u#a, Ce#u City, one of which was Cadastral 9ot No" ))*(*, the su#5ect of this contro$ersy ANTONIO CA6ALLERO mo$ed for the issuance of the fnal decree of registration for their lots" Conse/uently, on 6ay '2, )*+?, the same court, through then !residing <udge Renato C" acudao, ordered the National 9and Titles and eeds Registration %dministration to issue the decree of registration and the corresponding titles of the lots in fa$or of the Ca#alleros RESPONDENTS sold to petitioner, Carmen del !rado for 1(., 9ot No" ))*(* on the #asis of the ta3 declaration co$ering the property" particularly descri#ed and #ounded containing an area of 1,((( s/uare meters, more or less 3OCT5 No. 1A05, co$ering 9ot No" ))*(*, was issued only on No$em#er )2, )**(, and entered in the GRegistration -oo.G of the City of Ce#u on ecem#er )*, )**(" technical description of 9ot No" ))*(* states that said lot measures a#out )1,12? s/uare meters, more or less" 7n 6arch '(, )**), petitioner fled in the same cadastral proceedings a >P$!+!+o, fo R$"+'!#!+o, of Do/&m$,! U,*$ P$'+*$,!+#) D$/$$ 3P.D.5 15?9> in order that a certifcate of title #e issued in her name, co$ering the whole 9ot No" ))*(*" petitioner alleged that the tenor of the instrument of sale indicated that the sale was for a lump sum or cuerpo cierto, in which case, the $endor was #ound to deli$er all that was included within said #oundaries e$en when it e3ceeded the area specifed in the contract" RESPONDENTS OPPOSED on the main ground that only 1,((( s/ m of 9ot No" ))*(* was sold to petitioner" They claimed that the sale was not for a cuerpo cierto" They mo$ed for the outright dismissal of the petition on grounds of prescription and lac. of 5urisdiction" RTC RULED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER found that petitioner had esta#lished a clear and positi$e right to 9ot No" ))*(*" The intended sale #etween the parties was for a lump sum, since there was no e$idence presented that the property was sold for a price per unit" It was apparent that the su#5ect matter of the sale was the parcel of land, .nown as Cadastral 9ot No" ))*(*, and not only a portion thereof" CA REVERSED AND SET ASIDE RTC The C% no longer touched on the character of the sale, #ecause it found that petitioner a$ailed herself of an improper remedy" The Gpetition for registration of documentG is not one of the remedies pro$ided under !"" No" )2'*, after the original registration has #een eKected" Thus, the C% ruled that the lower court committed an error when it assumed 5urisdiction o$er the petition, which prayed for a remedy not sanctioned under the !roperty Registration ecree" ISSUE: 20ET0ER OR NOT FILING T0E PETITION FOR REGISTRATION IN T0E SAME CADASTRAL CASE IS PROPER 0ELD: NO. The Court heldF 6ore importantly, we fnd no re$ersi#le error in the decision of the C%" !etitionerEs recourse, #y fling the petition for registration in the same cadastral case, was improper" It is a fundamental principle in land registration that a certifcate of title ser$es as e$idence of an indefeasi#le and incontro$erti#le title to the property in fa$or of the person whose name appears therein" &uch indefeasi#ility commences after one year from the date of entry of the decree of registration" Inasmuch as the petition for registration of document did not interrupt the running of the period to fle the appropriate petition for re$iew and considering that the prescri#ed one0year period had long since e3pired, the decree of registration, as well as the certifcate of title issued in fa$or of respondents, had #ecome incontro$erti#le" A. NE2 DURA2OOD CO. VS. CA, GR NO. 1117A?,?0 FE6 1999 FACTS: P$!+!+o,$BCo.o#!+o, fled a !etition for <udicial Reconstitution of the 9ost 7wnerAs uplicate Certifcates of TCT in the Regional Trial Court respondent <udge granted SOMETIME IN MA4, 1991, PETITIONER DISCOVERED that the original TCT Nos" N0)1(1+2, N0 )1(1+B and )2B121 on fle with the Register of eeds of Rizal had #een /#,/$))$* and, in lieu thereof, TCT Nos" '(()((, '(()() and '(()(' had #een issued in the name OF RESPONDENT DURA2OOD CONSTRUCTION AND LUM6ER SUPPL4, INC" &urprised #y this cancellation, petitioner 0 after in$estigation 0 found out a#out the $/o,'!+!&!+o, .o/$$*+," in the respondent trial court" PETITIONER FILED SUIT in the Court of %ppeals praying for the annulment of the assailed order in 9RC Case No" *)0*'1 penned #y respondent <udge" It also prayed for the cancellation of the new certifcates (TCT Nos" '(()((, '(()() and '(()(')" CA AFFIRMED RTC SC PETITION PETITIONER ALLEGATIONS that a reconstitution proceeding is one in rem and thus 5urisdiction can #e ac/uired only through pu#lication and notice sent pursuant to &ection )H, Repu#lic %ct No" 'B" It also alleges that fraud is manifest ()) from the insuCcient allegations of the petition fled #efore the trial court, as it (the petition) does not mention the names of ad5oining land owners and interested persons, as well as (') from the aCda$it of loss attached to the petition" PRIVATE RESPONDENTS a$er that in )**(, these three lots were sold #y petitioner to urawood Construction and 9um#er &upply, Inc" #ut the sale in their fa$or could not #e registered #ecause Gthe certifcates of title" " " were lost"G They also allege that the applica#le law is &ection )(* of R"%" No" 1*B, as amended #y !"" )2'*, and not &ec" )H of R"%" No" 'B, and that fraud, in order to ser$e as #asis for the annulment of a 5udgment Gmust #e e3trinsic or collateral in characterG, which is not the case in the action #efore the court a /uo" They also fault G(t)he deli#erate failure of y Quim !ong (petitionerAs #oard chairman) and his family, who constitute the ma5ority of the stoc.holders and directors of (herein petitioner0corporation), to disclose the wherea#outs (of) there (sic) son, the !resident and =eneral 6anager 8rancis ytiongsee " " " G who allegedly e3ecuted the deed of sale of the lots and who allegedly claimed that the ownerAs copies of the TCTs were lost" PETITIONERCS REPL4 Contends that Gthe $ery procedure pro$ided under &ec" )(*, ! )2'*, which they (pri$ate respondents) insist is the applica#le pro$ision of law in the matter, was not strictly followed " " "G It also argues that the ownerAs duplicate copies of the TCTs were all along in the custody of y Quim !ong, whom pri$ate respondents should ha$e sued to compel him to surrender the same in order that the alleged deed or sale in fa$or of pri$ate respondent could #e registered" 8inally, petitioner claims that respondent Iilson =aw had no authority to institute the petition for reconstitution in the trial court #ecause G(t)he Court of %ppeals itself, in its /uestioned resolution stated that said #oard resolution (authorizing =aw) was passed without the re/uired /uorum"G ISSUE: 2ON T0E COURT 0AS JUSRISDICTION TO ISSUE A NE2 O2NER;S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE OF A TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IF IT S IS S0O2N T0AT T0E EDISTING O2NER;S COP4 0AS NOT, IN FACT AND IN TRUT0, 6EEN LOST OR DESTRO4ED 0ELD: NO. The Court has no 5urisdiction to issue a new ownerAs duplicate certifcate of a Torrens certifcate of title if it s is shown that the e3isting ownerAs copy has not, in fact and in truth, #een lost or destroyed" In Demetriou vs" "ourt of #ppeals, et al" * this Court ruledF In !erra !erra v" "ourt of #ppeals ()*2 &CR% 1+' L)**)M), on facts analogous to those in$ol$ed in this case, this Court already held that if a certifcate of title has not #een lost #ut is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is $oid and the court rendering the decision has not ac/uired 5urisdiction" Conse/uently the decision may #e attac.ed any time" In the instant case, the ownerAs duplicate certifcates of title were in the possession of y Quim !ong, the petitionerAs chairman of the #oard and whose family controls the petitioner0 corporation" &ince said certifcates were ,o! +, f#/! >)o'! o *$'!o:$*G, there was no necessity for the petition fled in the trial court for the Gissuance of New 7wnerAs uplicate Certifcates of TitleF " " "G In fact, the said court ne$er ac/uired 5urisdiction to order the issuance of new certifcates" 4ence, the newly issued duplicates are themsel$es null and $oid" It is o#$ious that this lapse happened #ecause pri$ate respondents and respondent 5udge failed to follow the procedure set forth in !"" No" )2'* which, as already stated, go$erns the issuance of new ownerAs duplicate certifcates of title" &ection )(* of said law pro$ides, inter alia, that Gdue notice under oathG of the loss or theft of the ownerAs duplicate Gshall #e sent #y the owner as #y someone in his #ehalf to the Register of Deeds " " "G (emphasis supplied)" In this case, while an aCda$it or loss was attached to the petition in the lower court, no such notice was sent to the Register of eeds" !ri$ate respondents tried to con$ince the Court that #y their failure to locate 8rancis ytiongsee, they had no other recourse #ut to fle a petition for reconstitution" &ec" )(? of !"" )2'*, howe$er, states that the remedy, in case of the refusal or failure of the holder 0 in this case, the petitioner 0 to surrender the ownerAs duplicate certifcate of title, is a Gpetition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of eedsG, and not a petition for reconstitution" For your reference: (from the case) APPLICA6LE LA2 ()) &ection )H, Repu#lic %ct No" 'BF + &ec" )H" The court shall cause a notice of the petition, fled under the preceding section, to #e pu#lished, at the e3pense of the petitioner, twice in successi$e issues of the $%cial &a'ette, and to #e posted on the main entrance of the pro$incial #uilding and of the municipal #uilding of the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing" The court shall li.ewise cause a copy of the notice to #e sent, #y registered mail or otherwise, at the e3pense of the petitioner, to e$ery person named therein whose address is .nown, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing" &aid notice shall state, among other things, the num#er of the lost or destroyed certifcate of title, if .nown, the name of the registered owner, the names of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owners of the ad5oining properties and all other interested parties, the location, area and #oundaries of the property, and the date on which all persons ha$ing any interest therein must appear and fle their claim or o#5ections to the petition" The petitioner shall, at the hearing, su#mit proof of the pu#lication, posting and ser$ice of the notice as directed #y the court,G 3?5 S$/!+o, 109 P.D. 15?9 3#m$,*+," R.A. 8995: &ec" )(*" (otice and replacement of lost duplicate certifcate" In case of loss or theft of an ownerAs duplicate certifcate of title, due notice under oath shall #e sent #y the owner or #y someone in his #ehalf to the Register of eeds of the pro$ince or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is disco$ered" If a duplicate certifcate is lost or destroyed, or cannot #e produced #y a person applying for the entry of a new certifcate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may #e fled #y the registered owner or other person in interest and registered" :pon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certifcate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certifcate, #ut shall in all respects #e entitled to li.e faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter #e regarded as such for all purposes of this decree" % reading of #oth pro$isions clearly shows that &ection )(* of !"" )2'* is the law applica#le in petitions for issuance of new owner's duplicate certifcates of title which are lost or stolen or destroyed" 7n the other hand, R"%" 'B applies only in cases of reconstitution of last or destroyed original certifcates on fle with the Register of eeds" This is e3pressly pro$ided for under &ection ))( of !"" )2'* as followsF &ec" ))(" Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title" 0 $riginal copies of certifcates of title lost or destroyed in the o%ces of Registers of Deeds as well as liens and encum#rances aKecting the lands co$ered #y such titles shall be reconstituted )udicially in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Republic #ct (o" *+ insofar as not inconsistent with this ecree" The procedure relati$e to administrati$e reconstitution of lost or destroyed certifcate prescri#ed in said %ct may #e a$ailed of only in case of su#stantial loss or destruction of land titles due to fre, Nood or other force ma5ure as determined #y the %dministrator of the 9and Registration %uthorityF ,rovided, That the num#er of certifcates of titles lost or damaged should #e at least ten percent ()(O) of the total num#er in the possession of the 7Cce of the Register of eedsF ,rovided, further, That in no case shall the num#er of certifcates of titles lost or damaged #e less that f$e hundred (2(()" Notice of all hearings of the petition for 5udicial reconstitution shall #e furnished the Register of eeds of the place where the land is situated and to the %dministrator of the 9and Registration %uthority" No order or 5udgment ordering the reconstitution of a certifcate of title shall #ecome fnal until the lapse of ffteen ()2) days from receipt #y the Register of eeds and #y the %dministrator of the 9and Registration %uthority of a notice of such order or 5udgment without any appeal ha$ing #een fled #y any such oCcials"G (%s amended #y R"%" B?H', emphasis supplied) 8. REPU6LIC VS. TUASTUM6AN, GR NO. 17A?10, ?8 APRIL ?009 FACTS: PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE RESPONDENT TUASTUM6AN fled a petition for reconstitution of the 7CT co$ering 9ot No" ?)'*, 8lr0)HH, Talisay0 6inglanilla >state under !atent No" 1HB)* in the name of the 9egal 4eirs of &ofa 9azo, with a total land area of appro3imately H,BHH s/uare meters" 7CT allegedly either lost or destroyed during Iorld Iar II" anchored her petition for reconstitution on &ec" '(d) of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B1 (R"%" No" 'B) which pro$ides that an original certifcate of title may #e reconstituted from an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may #e, pursuant to which the original certifcate of title was issued" RTC found the petition to #e suCcient in form and su#stance and set the hearing of the petition on '* 6arch '(((" directed the -ranch Cler. of Court to pu#lish a copy of the Notice of 4earing in the 7Ccial =azette and to send copies thereof to the owners of the ad5oining properties of 9ot No" ?)'*, respondentEs counsel, the &olicitor =eneral, the %dministrator of the 9and Registration %uthority and the Register of eeds of Ce#u !ro$ince" &cheduled hearing0 cler. of court announced three times if there was no opposition No one opposed the court proceeded to recei$e respondentEs e3hi#its to esta#lish the 5urisdictional facts" Lo! No. 71?9 was granted to the heirs of &ofa 9azo $ia !atent No" 1HB)* issued on ') <uly )*H+ in accordance to the Certifcation #y the Community >n$ironment and Natural Resources 7Cce (C>NR7) of Ce#u City" RESPONDENT CONTENTIONS she #ought the property from the said owners who are also her relati$es, as e$idenced #y an >3tra5udicial eclaration of 4eirs with Iai$er of Inheritance Rights and eed of %#solute &ale" that since the time of purchase, she has #een occupying and possessing the land and paying the realty ta3es thereon" prayed for reconstitution of the title co$ering the property since the title, supposedly on fle and under the custody of the Register of eeds of Ce#u !ro$ince, had either #een lost or destroyed during Iorld Iar II as certifed #y said oCce" Ce#u City !rosecutor >dil#erto >nsomo, representing the 7Cce of the &olicitor =eneral, did not present any e$idence against respondent" RTC ORDERED TO RECONSTITUTE T0E LOST OCT +, !($ ,#m$ of !($ L$"#) 0$+' of So-# L#Eo CA REVERSED RTC no proper reconstitution can #e done since respondent did not utilize the sources of reconstitution pro$ided under &ec" '? of R"%" No" 'B in the order therein stated, merely presenting as it did a Certifcation from the C>NR7 that a patent had #een issued o$er 9ot No" ?)'* in the name of the heirs of &ofa 9azo" respondent #ased her petition for reconstitution on the following documentsF (a) >3tra5udicial eclaration of 4eirs with Iai$er of Inheritance Rights and eed of %#solute &ale dated )* <uly )***D (#) C>NR7 Certifcation dated H) 6ay )*** that 9ot No" ?)'* is patented in the name of the 9egal 4eirs of &ofa 9azoD* (c) Register of eeds Certifcation dated H) 6ay )*** that no certifcate of title co$ering 9ot No" ?)'* was issued in the name of the legal heirs of &ofa 9azo and that all deeds@records were either #urned or lost during the last Iorld IarD)( (d) Ta3 eclaration co$ering 9ot No"?)'* in the name of respondentD)) (e) -lue !rint of %d$ance !lan of 9ot No" ?)'*D)' (f) Technical escription of 9ot No" ?)'*D)H and (g) Real !roperty Ta3 Clearance" held that respondentEs proKered e$idence fall under &ec" '(f) of R"%" 'B which pertains to Gany other document which, in the 5udgment of the court, is suCcient and proper #asis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certifcate of title"G Resort to the sources under &ec" '(f) is 5ustifed only when the sources under &ecs" '(a) to (e) are :N%P%I9%-9>" Respondent had failed to lay the #asis to warrant consideration of sources under &ec" '(f)" There was no proof of loss of the #est source for reconstitution which is the ownerEs duplicate copy of the certifcate of titleD therefore, the succeeding sources for reconstitution cannot $alidly #e considered" MR CA REVERSED ITSELF. AFFIRMED RTC DECISION TO ORDER TO RECONSTITUTE TITLE IN T0E NAME OF 0EIRS OF LAFO held that respondent (#' '&%'!#,!+#)): /om.)+$* with the re/uirements for reconstitution under R% 'B" traced the ownership of 9ot No" ?)'* #ased on the records of the -ureau of 9ands, 8riar 9ands i$ision, now the C>NR7 of the >NR" RespondentEs #))$"$* f#+)&$ !o .o1$ !($ )o'' of !($ o7,$C' *&.)+/#!$ /$!+-/#!$ of !+!)$ was held to #e 5ustifed #y petitionerEs failure to deny or oppose the allegation" %s the allegation of loss was ne$er specifcally denied, the a$erment in respondentEs petition was deemed admitted without need of e$idence to pro$e the same" SC PETITION PETITIONER;S ALLEGATIONS argues that the Certifcation from the C>NR7 presented #y respondent is insuCcient #ecause &ec" '(d) of R% 'B e3plicitly re/uires an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent pursuant to which the original certifcate of title was issued" Ihat must #e presented is an authenticated copy of the decree or registration patent and not a mere certifcation that the patent has #een issued" concludes that since there was no e$idence presented showing that an 7CT or TCT had #een issued prior to its alleged loss, there can #e no legal or factual #asis for its reconstitution" Ihile there were certifcations, technical descriptions and ta3 declarations presented, these are insuCcient #ases under R% 'B" ISSUE: whether the documents presented #y respondent constitute suCcient #asis for the reconstitution of title to 9ot No" ?)'*" 0ELD: NO, the documents presented by the respondents does not constitute su%cient basis for the reconstitution of title to -ot (o. ./*0. Respondent anchored her petition for reconstitution on !ec. *1d2 of R# *+. Respondent however failed to present an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent pursuant to which the original certifcate of title was issued. !he relied on the !N"O certifcation which is however not the authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent re3uired by law. The certifcation plainly states only that -ot (o. ./*0 is patented in the name of the -egal 4eirs of !ofa -a'o. t is not even a copy of the decree of registration or patent itself but a mere certifcation of the issuance of such patent. The respondents resorted to other documents in sec *1f2, thus, reconstitution will still not issue. Resort to other documents in !ec. *1f2 must be employed only when the documents earlier referred to in !ecs. *1a2 to 1e2 #O NO$ %&%'(. These documents may prove only that -ot (o. ./*0 was patented to !ofa -a'o and her heirs and that the same was later sold to respondent. t does not establish the e5istence or issuance of a certifcate of title. #t best, respondent6s evidence may prove only that -ot (o. ./*0 was patented to !ofa -a'o and her heirs and that the same was later sold to respondent. Respondent failed to prove that an original certifcate of title or transfer certifcate of title actually e5isted. -ot (o. ./*0 may have actually been registered and the certifcate of title thereto may have actually been issued, but the fact remains that this was not proven by the evidence presented in this case. There is also the possibility that the property had never been registered and that the certifcate of title never issued. n that case, respondent6s remedy may be another proceeding probably for the registration of title to -ot (o. ./*0 and not for reconstitution. 7ecause reconstitution presupposes the e5istence of an original certifcate of title which was lost or destroyed, if there is no such original certifcate of title, there is actually nothing to reconstitute. SC REVERSED CA. PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION NOT GRANTED. Fo :o& $f$$,/$: GOVERNING LA2 FOR JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION The go$erning law for 5udicial reconstitution of titles is R"%" No" 'B" &ections ')+ and H)* of R% 'B enumerate the sources upon which reconstitution should issue" &ection ' refers to source documents for reconstitution of the original certifcate of title while &ec" H refers to sources for reconstitution of transfer certifcates of title" The re/uirements of &ecs" ' and H are almost identical, referring to documents from oCcial sources which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors0in0interest"'( In Repu#lic $" Intermediate %ppellate Court,') the Court ruled that Gany other documentG in &ecs" '(f) and H(f) of R% 'B refers to documents similar to those pre$iously enumerated therein, that is, those mentioned in &ections (a), (#), (c), (d) and (e)" The Court reiterated this ruling in 4eirs of izon $" 4on" iscaya'' and Repu#lic $" >l =o#ierno de las Islas 8ilipinas" The documents alluded to in &ecs" '(f) and H(f) must #e resorted to in the a#sence of those preceding in order" If the petitioner for reconstitution fails to show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such prior documents and failed to fnd them, the presentation of the succeeding documents as su#stitutionary e$idence is proscri#ed" In relation to the foregoing, &ecs" )''2 and )H'B of R% 'B re/uires compliance with additional 5urisdictional re/uirements" &ection )2'? thereof also pro$ides when an order for reconstitution should issue" REGUIREMENTS FOR #, o*$ fo $/o,'!+!&!+o, !o +''&$ 8rom the foregoing, the following must #e present for an order for reconstitution to issueF (a) that the certifcate of title had #een lost or destroyedD (#) that the documents presented #y petitioner are suCcient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certifcate of titleD (c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest thereinD (d) that the certifcate of title was in force at the time it was lost and destroyedD and (e) that the description, area and #oundaries of the property are su#stantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certifcate of title" PURPOSE The reconstitution of a certifcate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land" The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to ha$e, after o#ser$ing the procedures prescri#ed #y law, the title reproduced in e3actly the same way it has #een when the loss or destruction occurred" R% 'B presupposes that the property whose title is sought to #e reconstituted has already #een #rought under the pro$isions of the Torrens &ystem" R$'.o,*$,! #,/(o$* ($ .$!+!+o, fo $/o,'!+!&!+o, o, S$/. ?3*5 of RA ?9. Respondent howe$er failed to present an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent pursuant to which the original certifcate of title was issued" &he $)+$* o, !($ CENRO /$!+-/#!+o, which is howe$er not the authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent re/uired #y law" The certifcation plainly states only that 9ot No" ?)'* is patented in the name of the 9egal 4eirs of &ofa 9azo" It is not e$en a copy of the decree of registration or patent itself #ut a mere certifcation of the issuance of such patent" RESORTING TO OT0ER DOCUMENTS IN SEC ?3F5, RECONSTITUTION 2ILL STILL NOT ISSUE E1$, +f 7$ %#'$ $'.o,*$,!C' .$!+!+o, o, S$/. ?3f5 of R.A. No. ?9 as the Court of %ppeals did, and as respondent now argues in this petition, reconstitution would still not issue" Resort to other documents in &ec" '(f) must #e employed only 7($, !($ *o/&m$,!' $#)+$ $f$$* !o +, S$/'. ?3#5 !o 3$5 DO NOT AVAIL. Respondent reasons that she can only rely on &ec" '(f) #ecause the re/uired documents enumerated in &ecs" '(a) to (e) may only #e procured from the Register of eeds which had already certifed that all such records were #urned or destroyed in the last Iorld Iar" RESPONDENT 0AS NOT ESTA6LIS0ED T0E ISSUANCE AND EDISTENCE OF T0E COT The pro#lem though is that respondent has not esta#lished the issuance or e3istence of the certifcate of title co$ering 9ot No" ?)'* nor of the other documents enumerated in &ecs" '(#) to (e) that would pro$e the e3istence, e3ecution and contents of the certifcate of title sought to #e reconstituted" There is nothing in the e$idence she presented that would show that 9ot No" ?)'* had #een registered in the name of the 9egal 4eirs of &ofa 9azo and that the certifcate of title in the name of the said heirs o$er said property had #een issued" T($ fo))o7+," *o/&m$,!'H $1+*$,/$ *+* ,o! .o1$ !($ $I+'!$,/$ of COT )" The EI!#<&*+/+#) D$/)##!+o, of 0$+' 7+!( 2#+1$ of I,($+!#,/$ R+"(!' #,* D$$* of A%'o)&!$ S#)$ presented #y respondent does not indicate that the property was registered in the name of the 9egal 4eirs of &ofa 9azo" '" !#I *$/)##!+o, Cannot #e relied on to proce the e3istence of C7TD it merely pro$e payment of realty ta3es H" CENRO /$!+-/#!+o, only certifed that sales patent had #een issued to the heirs of &ofa 9azo" 1" 6)&$ P+,! of A*1#,/$ P)#, #,* T$/(,+/#) D$'/+.!+o, of Lo! No. 71?9 mere descriptions of 9ot ?)'* 2" LRA $.o! merely attests to the correctness of the plan and technical description which may su#se/uently #e used as #asis for the inscription of the technical description in the reconstituted title " 5. 6UNAGAN VS. CFI, GR NO. LB?907A, 1J APRIL 19J0 FACTS: PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DIONISIA ICONG and her children all surnamed 7mpad, fled with the Court of 8irst Instance of Ce#u a petition for the reconstitution of the original certifcate of title co$ering 9ot )BB( of the 7pon Cadastre in the name of GA,!o,+o Om.#* #,* D+o,+'+# I/o,", '.o&'$',> and once reconstituted" to cancel the same and another one issued in the name of G8ilemon 7mpad married, of legal age, and resident of 9apu0lapu CityD 6anuel 7mpad, widower, of legal age, and resident of 9apu0 lapu CityD %rsenio 7mpad, married, of legal age, and resident of 9apu0lapu CityD Napoleon 7mpad, married, of legal age, and resident of 9apu0lapu CityD and ionisia Icong,sur$i$ing spouse of %ntonio 7mpad, of legal age and resident of 9apu0lapu City" PETITIONER 3E'.++!& 6&,#"#,5 OPPOSED T0E PETITION that he is the owner of the lot in /uestion, ha$ing #ought the same from =uadalupe 9umongsod and !erpetua Inso, legitimate heirs of the late %ntonio 7mpadD and that ionisia Icong is merely a trustee of the lot in #ehalf of %ntonio 7mpad" mo$ed to dismiss the opposition, contending that the said opposition constitute an ad$erse claim against the rights of %ntonio 7mpad and ionisia Icong which cannot #e entertained #y the cadastral court" T0E CADASTRAL COURT 3+, f#1o of P+1#!$ R$'.o,*$,! I/o,"5 ruled that it could not entertain the claim of the oppositor which should #e $entilated in an ordinary ci$il action, and ga$e due course to the petition" the court issued an order T7 R>C7N&TIT:T> T4> TIT9> in the names of the original owners J '.o&'$' A,!o,+o Om.#* #,* D+o,+'+# I/o," 7riginal Certifcate of Title No" R70(B?2 was issued in the name of Gspouses %ntonio 7mpad and ionisia Icong"G (from %ntonio 7mpad and ionisia Icong, spouses to Gspouses %ntonio 7mpad and ionisia Icong) PETITIONER >spiritu -unagan fled an &"$,! mo!+o, to correct the order of <une )?, )*B? and the original certifcate of title No" R70*B?2, #y su#stituting, as the registered owners of 9ot )BB(" G%ntonio 7mpad and ionisia IncongG instead of Gspouses %ntonio 7mpad and ionisia IcongG upon the ground that upon the e$idence presented (plan and technical description and the certifcate of the Cler. of Court) the lot was ad5udicated to G%ntonio 7mpad and ionisia IcongG during the cadastral proceedings, and not to spouses %ntonio 7mpad and ionisia Icong" DIONISIA ICONG fled her o..o'+!+o,, claiming that the issuance of the certifcate of title in the name of Gspouses %ntonio 7mpad and ionisia IcongG is warranted under &ection ))' of the 9and Registration %ct which authorizes alteration or amendment of the title upon proper petition" RESPONDENT COURT DENIED T0E MOTION Considering that the court, sitting as a cadastral court, did not entertain the claim of the oppositor which, according to then <udge <ose N" 6endoza, Amay #e $entilated in a separate ci$il actionA this Court, li.ewise, cannot entertain the :rgent 6otion to Correct 7rder of 4onora#le Court dated <une )?, )*B? and >ntry of 7riginal Certifcate of Title No" R70(B?2 #y the Register of eeds of 9apu0lapu City, for the same reason" ISSUE: 2ON T0E COURT SITTING AS A CADASTRAL COURT 0AS JURISDICTION TO GRANT T0E URGENT MOTION TO CORRECT ORDER OF TC AND ENTR4 OF OCT 0ELD: NO" The reconstitution or reconstruction of a certifcate of title literally and within the meaning of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B denotes restoration of the instrument which is supposed to ha$e #een lost or destroyed in its original form and condition" The purpose of the reconstitution of any document, #oo. or record is to ha$e the same reproduced, after o#ser$ing the procedure prescri#ed #y law, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred" If the certifcate of title co$ering the lot was decreed in the form of G%ntonio 7mpad and ionisia Icong,G as in this case, the reconstituted certifcate of title should li.ewise #e in the name of the owners as they appeared in the lost or destroyed certifcate of title sought to #e reconstituted" %ny change that should #e made in the ownership of the property should #e the su#5ect of a separate suit" In the instant case, it appears that the petition fled on ecem#er )*, )*BB is not merely for the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certifcate of title" ionisia Icong and her children also wanted the correction of the name of the owners of the lot from G%ntonio 7mpad and ionisia IcongG to Gspouses %ntonio 7mpad and ionisia IcongG which in$ol$es a material change in the certifcate of title, a change which, not #eing consented to #y the herein petitioners whose interests are aKected there#y, cannot #e authorized under the summary proceedings for reconstitution prescri#ed in Repu#lic %ct No" 'B" % change of this nature raises an issue which should #e $entilated and decided in an ordinary ci$il action" The claim of ionisia Icong that the change is authorized under &ection ))' of the 9and Registration %ct is without merit" The proceedings authorized in &ection ))' could not #e a$ailed of in $iew of the opposition of the herein petitioners, for such proceedings apply only if there is unanimity among the parties or there is no ad$erse claim or serious o#5ection on the part of any party in interest" It would result that the respondent Court committed an error in re0 registering 9ot )BB( of the 7pon Cadastre in the name of Gspouses % %ntonio 7mpad and ionisia IcongG" SC MODIFIED TC DECISION %Crmed insofar as the reconstitution of 7CT in the name of G%ntonio 7mpad and ionisia IcongG 9. RIVERA VS. CA, GR NO. 10790A, ?? MA4 1995 FACTS: &temmed from a Complaint to /uiet title and for deli$ery of ownerAs duplicate of reconstituted title fled #y petitioner 6arilou Ri$era against respondents, heirs of Claudio =a#alones and -enita Roldan, #efore the Regional Trial Court, -ranch '+, &ta" Cruz, 9aguna" The reconstituted title in$ol$es a parcel of land with an area of si3ty (B() s/uare meters at !agsan5an, 9aguna" originally registered in the name of deceased souses Claudio =a#alones and -enita Roldan" %llegedly, the =a#alones spouses sold the land to =eneroso Reyes in )*1?" The deed of sale was not presented to pro$e the sale" Ta3 eclaration No" 1H(1 in the name of the =a#alones spouses appears to ha$e #een cancelled and a new ta3 declaration was issued in the name of =eneroso Reyes for the year )*1+" RE4ES sold the land to spouses Rogelio TaiQo and Corazon 9eron" The transaction was co$ered #y a deed of sale, duly registered with the Register of eeds of 9aguna" &pouses TaiQo sold the land to PETITIONER RIVERA The deed of sale e3ecuted #y the parties was also registered on &eptem#er )), )*+)" PETITIONER disco$ered that !az =a#alones, one of the heirs of spouses =a#alones (the original owners of the land), fled a .$!+!+o, fo $/o,'!+!&!+o, of )o'! o *$'!o:$* o+"+,#) !+!)$ co$ering the su#5ect land" petitioner failed to fle an opposition to the petition for reconstitution" The petition was granted and a reconstituted title was issued" PETITIONER T0EN FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF ADVERSE CLAIM with the 7Cce of the Register of eeds which was annotated on the title of the land" &he also fled a complaint with the RTC for /uieting of title and deli$ery of the reconstituted title" the trial court rendered a ecision declaring petitioner as the a#solute owner of the su#5ect land" PRIVATE RESPONDENT heirs appealed to the Court of %ppeals CA re$ersed the decision of the trial court, holding that petitioner had no e/uita#le or legal title o$er the su#5ect lot" ISSUE: 2ON T0E NONBPRESENTATION OF T0E DEED OF A6SOLUTE SALE 6ET2EEN T0E ORIGINAL O2NERS AND GENEROSO RE4ES IS FATAL TO T0E CASE OF T0E PETITIONER 0ELD: 4ES The respondent court did not err when it ruled that petitionerAs failure to present the deed of sale e$idencing the initial transfer of the su#5ect land from the original owners to =eneroso Reyes was fatal" !etitioner anchors her claim on the alleged titles of her predecessors0in0interest, i"e", that the land was initially sold #y deceased =a#alones spouses to =eneroso Reyes, who sold it to spouses TaiQo and 9eron, who later sold the same to her" !etitioner also introduced in e$idence two (') deeds of sale co$ering the su#5ect lotF the frst deed was e3ecuted #etween Reyes and the TaiQo spouses, the second deed was e3ecuted #y the TaiQo spouses in her fa$or" &ignifcantly, the deed of sale supposedly made #y the =a#alones spouses to Reyes was not presented in the trial court" %ll that was introduced during the hearing to pro$e this $ital fact was a ta3 declaration in the name of =eneroso Reyes for the year )*1+" The respondent court correctly found this proof inade/uate" In a num#er of cases, we ha$e ruled that a ta3 declaration, #y itself, is not considered conclusi$e e$idence of ownership" !etitioner cites the case of -autista $" Court of %ppeals, where it was held that ta3 declarations are Gstrong e$idence of ownership of land ac/uired #y prescription when accompanied #y proof of actual possession"G !etitionerAs reliance on said case is misplaced" In the -autista case, the su#5ect lot was unregistered land" !ri$ate respondent del Rio who was applying for registration of a parcel of land asserted ownership o$er said land and traced the roots of his title to a pu#lic instrument of sale in fa$or of his father from whom he inherited the land" In the case at #ench, howe$er, the su#5ect land is co$ered #y a title and has #een registered in the name of the original owners, the =a#alones spouses" It is also undisputed that, unli.e in the -autista case, petitioner traces her roots of title to a mere ta3 declaration in the name of =eneroso Reyes" The sale #etween the =a#alones spouses and Reyes was not satisfactorily esta#lished" PETITIONER CANNOT INVOKE ACGUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION Ie also hold that the respondent court did not err in ruling that petitioner cannot in$o.e ac/uisiti$e prescription considering that the su#5ect land was not co$ered #y any title when Reyes ac/uired it in )*1? up to the time the petition for reconstitution was fled #y pri$ate respondents in )*+*" &he su#mits that prior to the reconstitution of pri$ate respondentsA titleD she could ac/uire it #y prescription" Ie re5ect this su#mission" The fact that the title to the lot was lost does not mean that the lot ceased to #e a registered land #efore the reconstitution of its title" Reconstitution is simply the restoration of the instrument or title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition" Indeed, the order granting reconstitution of title confrms the fact that the su#5ect land has #een pre$iously registered and co$ered #y a Torrens title" %s the su#5ect land did not cease to #e titled, it cannot #e ac/uired #y ac/uisiti$e prescription" To hold otherwise is to wrea. ha$oc on the sta#ility of our Torrens system" SC AFFIRMED CA. 7. REPU6LIC VS. MATEO, GR NO. 1890?5,1A AUG ?008 FACTS: spouses 9orenzo and 8eliciana 6ateo fled #efore the Regional Trial Court of -alanga, -ataan a petition for GR>C7N&TIT:TI7N 78 T4> 7RI=IN%9 C7!; %& I>99 %& T4> 7IN>RA& :!9IC%T> C7!; 78 TR%N&8>R C>RTI8IC%T> 78 TIT9> N7" T0H+?B*G issued on <uly )B, )*?) #y the Registry of eeds of -ataan in the name of one <ose Tan" Co$ers two parcels of land that they ac/uired from <ose Tan the a#o$e0descri#ed parcels of land #y purchase on &eptem#er H, )*?+ #y eed of &ale dated &eptem#er H, )*?+D that the original copy of TCT No" T0H+?B* on fle at the Registry of eeds of -ataan is missing and could not #e located despite eKorts to do so, hence, deemed lostD that while 9orenzo 6ateo was in possession of the ownerAs duplicate copy of the title, Gdue to his fre/uent reassignment as a former military oCcer to diKerent places from )*?+ up to his retirement on &eptem#er H, )**(, he misplaced said title among his fles, although he has a 3ero3 copy LthereofMGD and that despite eKorts to locate the ownerAs duplicate copy of the title, the same pro$ed futile and is now deemed lost" DOCUMENTAR4 EVIDENCE Car#on copy of deed of a#solute sale !hotocopy of TCT issued to <ose Tan 9etter of 6ateo to R informing the later that the ownerEs duplicate copy of TCT was lost RTC DENIED &ince this is a petition for the reconstitution of a transfer certifcate of title the applica#le pro$ision is &ec" H of Repu#lic No" 'B, as amended #y Rep" %ct No" B?H'" That section pro$ides thatF &>C" H, T#,'f$ /$!+-/#!$' of title shall #e reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may #e a$aila#le, in the following orderF (a) The ownerAs duplicate of the certifcate of titleD (#) That co0ownerAs mortgageeAs, or lesseeAs duplicate of the certifcate of titleD (c) % certifed copy of the certifcate of title, pre$iously issued #y the register of deeds or #y a legal custodian thereofD (d) The deed of transfer or other document, on fle in the Registry of eeds, containing the description of the property, or an #&!($,!+/#!$* copy thereof, showing that its original had #een registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer certifcate of title was issuedD (e) % document on fle in the Registry of eeds #y which the property, the description of which is gi$en in said document, is mortgaged, leased, or incum#ered, or an #&!($,!+/#!$*copy of said document showing that its original had #een registered, and (f) %ny other document which, in the 5udgment of the court, is suCcient and proper #asis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certifcate of title" NONE OF T0ESE SOURCES 0AKSL 6EEN PRESENTED 64 T0E PETITIONERS" It appears also that the original certifcate of title is still missing and has to #e reconstituted on the #asis of the sources enumerated in &ec" ' of R% 'B" Thus, the authenticated decree of registration could #e a #asis for the reconstitution of the original certifcate of title #ut not of the transfer certifcate of title" In this case, the decree was issued in the name of Do,#!o EI/(+1#+# D howe$er, there is no showing how the parcels of land in /uestion were transferred to <ose Tan" )2 CA REVERSED RTC &ince the pro$ision contains the /ualifcation 0 Gas may #e a$aila#leG 0 the presentation of any of the sources enumerated a#o$e is suCcient" The trial court erred in not gi$ing weight to the .(o!o/o.: of the ownerAs duplicate of Transfer Certifcate of Title No" T0 H+?B* (>3hi#it GIG) as a secondary e$idence falling under &ection H(a) or e$en &ection H(f) as a#o$e/uoted" SC .$!+!+o,: PETITIONERCS ARGUMENT that Gwhen the su#5ect of in/uiry is the contents of a document, no e$idence is admissi#le other than the original document itself e3cept in the instances mentioned in &ection H, Rule )H( of the Rules of Court,G adding that mere photocopies of documents are inadmissi#le pursuant to the #est e$idence rule,G it citing 4eirs of !evera ,. ®orio v. "ourt of #ppeals . )* argues that #efore secondary e$idence may #e admitted, the proponent must frst esta#lish the former e3istence of the instrument, citing -a'atin v. "ampos et al" '( concludes that there #eing no showing that the TCT pre$iously e3isted, the photocopy not ha$ing #een authenticated #y the Registry of eeds of -ataan, admission of such copy $iolates the #est e$idence rule, citing ,eople v. !to. Tomas" ') DOCUMENTS PRESENTED DOES NOT ESTA6LIS0 T0E EDISTENCE OF TCT The )**? ta3 declarations (>3hs" G:G and G:0)) as well as the ta3 receipts (>3hs" GKG to GK0?G) do not pro$e the prior $alid e3istence of TCT No" H+?B* since these e$idence are $/$,! documents that were prepared #f!$ #oth original and ownerAs duplicate of said certifcate of title were supposedly lost" Neither does the receipt dated 6arch +, )*?H pro$e the prior 1#)+* e3istence of said TCT0H+?B*" &aid e$idence, in fact, put to dou#t such claim" The receipt dated 6arch +, )*?H (>3h" GTG 0 GT0HG) shows that the said certifcate of title is of dou#tful origin since it was %$+," +,1$'!+"#!$* #y the National -ureau of In$estigation" Curiously, '+,/$ !($ !+m$ !($ '#+* !+!)$ 7#' !#@$, %: !($ N6I +, 1999, !($$ 7#' ,o $1+*$,/$ of #,: $Mo! fom Jo'$ T#,, !($ #))$"$* $"+'!$$* o7,$, !o /#&'$ +!' $!&, !o !($ 6#!##, R$"+'!: of D$$*'" &uch prolonged inaction may #e deemed as an implied admission of the titleAs du#ious origin" R$/o,'!+!&!+o, $=&+$' !(#! !($ '&%<$/! !+!)$ 7#' $alidly $I+'!+," #! !($ !+m$ of !($ )o''. A, +,1#)+* !+!)$ /#,,o! %$ $/o,'!+!&!$*. ISSUEF whether or not the C% erred in gi$ing e$identiary weight to the alleged photocopy of the title as #asis of its order for the reconstitution of the original and ownerAs copy of the title" 4ES. S "!&!"S!# %. )!$'$'ON FO" "!ONS$'$'ON NO$ *"%N$!# The Decision 8of 9udge Ti'on: dated ;arch /., /0+0, 1<5h. =;=2 and the Decree dated ;arch //, /0./ issued pursuant thereto, do not constitute su%cient basis for granting the reconstitution of T"T (o. T> ?@.+0 in the name of 9ose Tan considering that, at most, these documents tend to establish the original registration of the sub)ect propertyin the name of #onato !chi+erri 1sic2. #s correctly noted by the trial court 87ranch * of the RT" of 7alanga:, =there is no showing how the parcels of land in 3uestion were transferred to 9ose Tan= 1p. A, Decision dated !eptember /B, /00@2. The said order and decree, therefore, establish only the prior e5istence of $"T (o. (>*CA but not that of T"T (o. T>?@.+0 in the name of 9ose Tan. ** 1<mphasis in the originalD underscoring supplied2 The "#'s reliance, as another basis of reconstitution, on the ;arch /., /0+0 certifed photocopy of 9udge Ti'on's decision awarding to Donato <chivarria from whose $"T the T"T sub)ect of reconstitution was transferred does not lie for, in the frst place, as noted by the trial court, =there is no showing how the parcels of land were transferred to 9ose Tan,= the ;ateos' predecessor>in>interest. In fne, the M#!$o' (#1$ ,o! '#!+'f#/!o+): '(o7, !(#! !($ o+"+,#) of !($ TCT (#' %$$, )o'! o +' ,o )o,"$ #1#+)#%)$" 7n this score alone, the 6ateosA petition for reconstitution fails" In any e$ent, e$en assuming that the original of the TCT was lost or is no longer a$aila#le, not only is the photocopy of the alleged ownerAs duplicate copy thereof 0 >3h" G)G 'B partly illegi#le" Ihen, where and under what circumstances the photocopy was ta.en and where it was .ept to spare it from #eing also GlostG were not e$en shown" These, not to mention the conduct #y the epartment of <ustice and N-I of an in$estigation #ehind the issuance of the 7CT and TCT caution and lead this Court to rule against the suCciency of the 6ateosA e$idence and propriety of a grant of their petition for reconstitution fo :o& $f$$,/$: &ection H of R"%" No" 'B, G%N %CT !R7PIIN= % &!>CI%9 !R7C>:R> 87R T4> R>C7N&TIT:TI7N 78 T7RR>N& C>RTI8IC%T>& 78 TIT9> 97&T 7R >&TR7;>,G which has #een /uoted #y the trial court in its decision, enumerates the sources0 documents0#ases of a reconstitution of a transfer certifcate of title" To repeat, they are, in the following orderF )" the ownerAs duplicate of the title '" the co0ownerAs mortgageeAs, or lesseeAs duplicate of the title H" a certifed copy of the title pre$iously issued #y the register of deeds or #y a legal custodian 1" an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may #e, pursuant to which the 7CT was issued 2" a document, on fle in the registry of deeds, #y which the property " " " is " " " encum#ered or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had #een registeredD and any other document which, in the 5udgment of the court, is suCcient and proper #asis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed title"
S+,/$, $I/$.! fo !($ )#'! #%o1$B
$,&m$#!$* *o/&m$,!, !($ M#!$o' (#1$ f#+)$* !o .$'$,! #,: of !($ o!($ *o/&m$,!', !($ &)$ o, '$/o,*#: $1+*$,/$ &,*$ S$/. 5 of R&)$ 1A0 #..)+$'. S$/!+o, 5 of !($ &)$ .o1+*$': SEC. 5. ,hen ori-inal document is una+aila.le. 0 Ihen the original document has #een lost or destroyed, or cannot #e produced in court, the oKeror, upon proof of its e3ecution or e3istence and the cause of its una$aila#ility without #ad faith on its part, may pro$e its contents #y a copy, or #y a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or #y the testimony of witnesses in the order stated"
%s the immediately /uoted pro$ision of
the Rules directs, the order of presentation of secondary e$idence isF e3istence, e3ecution, loss, contents" The order may, howe$er, #e changed if necessary in the discretion of the court" The suCciency of the proof oKered as a predicate for the admission of an allegedly lost document lies within the 5udicial discretion of the trial court under all the circumstances of the particular case" 'H J. REPU6LIC VS. CA, GR NO. L899?9, ?7 DEC 1979 FACTS: These two cases are a#out the cancellation and annulment of reconstituted Torrens titles whose originals are e3isting and whose reconstitution was, therefore, uncalled for" 9ots Nos" *)2 and *)+ of the Tala >state, with areas of more than twenty0f$e and twenty0four hectares, respecti$ely, located at No$aliches, Caloocan, now Quezon City, are registered in the name of the "ommonwealth of the ,hilippines, as shown in Transfer Certifcates of Title Nos" H12*1 and H12*B of the Registry of eeds of Rizal #oth dated #pril ?C, /0?@. The originals of those titles are on fle in the registry of deeds in !asig, Rizal" They were not destroyed during the war" >$en the originals of the preceding cancelled titles for those two lots, namely, Transfer Certifcates of Title Nos" )2+H' and )2+H1 in the name of the !hilippine Trust Company, are intact in the registry of deeds" T0E RECONSTITUTION PROCEEDING 8ructuosa 9a#orada fled a petition for the reconstitution of the title co$ering the a#o$e0 mentioned 9ot No" *)2" No$ )*B? &he alleged that she was the owner of the lot and that the title co$ering it, the num#er of which she could not specify, was GN"%"G or not a$aila#le (Ci$il Case No" C0B??)"
RTCF =R%NT> (a) 9ot No" *)2 was co$ered #y a transfer certifcate of title which was not a$aila#le and which was issued to 6aria -ueza who sold the lot to 9a#orada" (#) directed the register of deeds of Caloocan City to reconstitute the title for 9ot No" *)2 in the name of 9a#orada" The order of reconstitution was not appealed" It #ecame fnal and e3ecutory" RF deeds issued to 9a#orada on %ugust )1, )*B+ Transfer Certifcate of Title No" (N"%") H0(R) '" %N7T4>R C%&> 8rancisca &" -om#ast fled a petition dated No$em#er )B, )*B? for the reconstitution of the title of another lot, the aforementioned 9ot No" *)+" RTC: GRANTED 2 months #efore the issuance of reconstituted title" 8rancisca -om#ast sold the lot to 4erculano eo (she used the same address used #y 9a#orada)" TCT was issued to eo" 7n 7cto#er '+, )*B*, eo sold the lot to % R % Torri5os >ngineering Corporation allegedly for !'2(,(((" TCT was issued to the company" 7n 6ay '2 and 'B, )*?(, the &tate fled two petitions for the cancellation and annulment of the reconstituted titles and the titles issued su#se/uent thereto (Ci$il Cases Nos" )?+1 and )?+2)" <udge &al$ador, who had ordered the reconstitution of %fter a 5oint trial of the two cases, respondents corporation and 9a#orada fled amended answers wherein they pleaded the defense that they were purchasers in good faith and for $alue" RTC: Titles cannot #e collaterally attac.ed BN the reconstituted titles and their deri$ati$es ha$e the same $alidity, force and eKect as the originals #efore the reconstitutionG CA: AFFIRMED )" Reconstitution can no longer #e set aside '" if there were irregularities in the reconstitution, then, as #etween two innocent parties, the &tate, as the party that made possi#le the reconstitution, should suKer the loss" The &tate appealed to &C" ISSUE: 2ON !($ $/o,'!+!&!$* !+!)$' #$ 1#)+* 0ELD: NO SC: C% erred in sustaining the $alidity of the reconstituted titles which, although issued with 5udicial sanction, are no #etter than spurious and forged titles" The crucial and decisi$e fact, is that two $alid and e3isting Torrens titles in the name of the Commonwealth of the !hilippines were needlessly reconstituted in the names of 9a#orada and -om#ast on the false or per5urious assumption that the two titles were destroyed during the war" 7ne and the same 5udge ()) allowed the reconstitution and then (') decided the two su#se/uent cases for the cancellation and annulment of the wrongfully reconstituted titles" The e3istence of the two titles of the =o$ernment for 9ots Nos" *)2 and *)+ ipso facto nullifed the reconstitution proceedings and signifed that the e$idence in the said proceedings as to the alleged ownership of 9a#orada and -om#ast cannot #e gi$en any credence" The reconstitution proceedings in Ci$il Cases Nos" C0B?? and C0 ?BH are $oid #ecause they are contrary to Repu#lic %ct No" 'B and #eyond the pur$iew of that law since the titles reconstituted are actually su#sisting in the registry of deeds and do not re/uire reconstitution at all" %s a rule, acts e3ecuted against the pro$isions of mandatory laws are $oid (%rt" 2, Ci$il Code)" NOT PURC0ASER IN GOOD FAIT0 3COMPAN45 SC REVERSED AND SET ASIDE 9. DIFON VS. DISCA4A, GR NO. 1AA50?, 15 FE6 1999 FACTS: !etitioners fled a petition dated <une 'B, )**) for the reconstitution of TCT No" ?2HH2 !etitioners fled an %mended !etition dated <une +, )**' correcting the num#er of the su#5ect TCT from ?2HH2 to ?2H22" !etition was dismissed for failure of petitioners to prosecute the case for an unreasona#le length of time" This was later set aside" !etitioners presented documentary e$idence to show their compliance with the 5urisdictional re/uirements RTC: DISMISSED 8ailure to comply with the re/uirements of &ection ' of %ct 'B" while the petitioners presented as >3hi#it GPG a Certifcation from the 9and Registration %uthority that the property in$ol$ed is co$ered #y ecree No" 1*?1, dated ecem#er 'H, )*)(, the said certifcation is not authenticated as re/uired #y R% 'B" the e$idence adduced #y petitioners did not suCce as a proper #asis for reconstitution" (relied on &f) ISSUES: Ihether &ection H of R% 'B go$erns the petition for reconstitution of the petitionersS 4ES Ihether petitionersA, presentation of the documents enumerated in paragraph 2 of 9RC Circular No" H2 constituted a suCcient and proper #asis for reconstitution under &ection H (f) of R% 'BS NO 0ELD: 1. 4ES. !etitioners are correct that &ection H of R% 'B go$erns petitions for reconstitution of transfer certifcates of title, while &ection ' of the same law applies when original certifcates of title are at sta.e" This can #e gleaned from the following pro$isions of &ections ' and H of R% 'BF &ec" '" 7riginal certifcate of title shall #e reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may #e a$aila#le, in the following orderF &ec" H" Transfer certifcates of title shall #e reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may #e a$aila#le -e that as it may, the ecision of the respondent court is right, under the attendant facts and circumstances, #ecause the #asis thereof is &ection ' (f) of R% 'B, which is the same as &ection H of said law" &ections ' and H of R% 'B are similar pro$isions e3cept for the following diKerences, as indicated hereunderF DIFFERENCE 6ET2EEN T0E T2O 8rom the foregoing, it is #eyond ca$il that &ection ' diKers from &ection H, as followsF a" %s to applica#ility J &ection ' applies to original certifcates of title while section H applies to transfer certifcates of titleD #" %s to (d) of #oth &ections J Ihile &ection '(d) re/uires an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, section H(d) re/uires the deed of transfer or other document in the registry of deeds, containing the description of the property, or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had #een registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed certifcate of title was issued" !etitioners predicate their petition for reconstitution on &ection H(f) of R% 'B" &ince the respondent court #ased the dismissal of the petition on &ection '(f), which was an e3act reproduction of &ection H(f), the disposition of the case would still #e the same, and the dismissal in /uestion would ha$e #een a sound disposition, had &ection H(f) #een applied" A' '!$''$* %: !($ So)+/+!o G$,$#), 7($!($ S$/!+o, ?3f5 o S$/!+o, A3f5 +' #..)+$* !o !($ /#'$, !($ $'&)! 7o&)* %$ !($ '#m$. OT0ER DOCUMENTS $f$ !o !(o'$ $,&m$#!$* +, .##"#.( 5 of LRC /+/&)# LRC CIRCULAR 2" In case the reconstitution is to #e made e3clusi$ely from sources enumerated in &ections '(f) and H (f) of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B in relation to section )' thereof, the signed duplicate copy of the petition to #e forwarded to this Commission shall #e accompanied #y the followingF !aragraph 2 of 9RC Circular No" H2 specifcally states that GLiMn case the reconstitution is to #e made e3clusi$ely from sources enumerated in sections '(f) and H(f) of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B, in relation to section )' thereof, the signed duplicate copy of the petition to #e forwarded to this Commission shall #e accompanied #y the followingF " " " G it is clear that su#paragraphs (a), (#), and (c) of paragraph 2 of 9RC Circular No" H2 are merely additional documents that must accompany the petition to #e forwarded to the 9and Registration Commission (now 9and Registration %uthority)" There is nothing in 9RC Circular No" H2 to support petitionersA stance that the documents therein enumerated are those referred to in &ection H(f) of R% 'B" 4a$ing failed to pro$ide a suCcient and proper #asis for reconstitution, petitioners cannot assail the respondent court for dismissing their petition for reconstitution" SC AFFIRMED 10. REPU6LIC VS. IAC, GR NO. 9JA0A, 1S JAN 1999 FACTS: The properties in dispute num#er three undi$ided lots L9ot No" 1B20%D -sd0+B1, C%0 )2*, 9ot No" '1(+0%, !sd0+B1 (9ot '12?0Cad" **), and 9ot No" '1)(0-, !sd0+B1 (9ot '1B) Cad **)M altogether consisting of a total of ),('1 hectares of ricelands" The title thereto stood allegedly in the name of &ultan <amalul Kiram, who died in )*HB" The pri$ate respondent, !rincess Kiram, a niece of the late &ultan, now claims that the original certifcate of title (No" !0)HH) thereto was destroyed as a conse/uence of a fre that gutted the oCce of the Register of eeds of &ulu sometime in 8e#ruary, )*?1" &he li.ewise alleges that the ownerAs copy thereof was lost on account of the same misfortune" &he fled for reconstitution of title" REPU6LIC OPPOSED o, !($ "o&,*' of: ()) lac. of proper pu#licationD a#sence of proof that 7riginal Certifcate of Title No" !0)HH was in force and in eKect at the time of its alleged lossD and H) failure to comply with the pro$isions of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B" RTC:GRANTED !($ #..)+/#!+o, on the strength of ()) certifcate of pu#lication in the 7Ccial =azetteD (') the respecti$e sur$ey plans and technical descriptions of the propertiesD and The pri$ate respondent presented a copy of %ct No" H1H(, G%n %ct to pro$ide for the reser$ation of certain lands of the pu#lic domain on the Island of &ulu, the usufruct thereof to #e granted to the &ultan of &ulu and his heirs,G among them, those su#5ect of the petition, as well as a copy of proclamation No" )2H( ISSUE: 2ON !($ $=&+$m$,!' fo $/o,'!+!&!+o, 7$$ /om.)+$* 7+!( 0ELD: NO the notices (of hearing) were not posted on the main entrances of the pro$incial and municipal halls of the locality in which the lands are located" :nder &ection )H, of Repu#lic %ct No" 'BF &>C" )H" The court shall cause a notice of the petition, fled under the preceding section, to #e pu#lished, at the e3pense of the petitioner, twice issues of the 7Ccial =azette, and to #e posted on the main of the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at the pro$incial #uilding and of the municipal #uilding at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing" 3333 T0ERE IS JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT such a mode of pu#lication is a 5urisdictional re/uirement" failure on the part of the applicant to comply with it confers no 5urisdiction upon the court" P&%)+/#!+o, of ,o!+/$ +, !($ OG ,o! $,o&"( In addition, Repu#lic %ct No" 'B decrees that such a notice #e posted Gon the main entranceG of the corresponding pro$incial capitol and municipal #uilding, as well as ser$ed actually upon the owners of ad5acent lands" 8ailure to comply with such re/uisites will nullify the decree of reconstitution" I! '(#)) %$ ,o!$* !(#! # <&*+/+#) $/o,'!+!&!+o, of !+!)$ .#!#@$' of # )#,* $"+'!#!+o, .o/$$*+,". T(&', ,o!+/$ of !($ .o/$$*+,"' m&'! %$ *o,$ +, !($ m#,,$ '$! fo!( %: !($ )$!!$ of !($ )#7. 7rder not proof of compliance
)2H( confers title to any party o$er the properties mentioned therein" 7n the other hand, Repu#lic %ct No" 'B entitled, G%n %ct !ro$iding % &pecial !rocedure 8or The Reconstitution 7f Torrens Certifcates of Title 9ost 7r estroyed,G enumerates the sources on which the reconstituted certifcate of title may #e #ased"
The statutes relied upon #y the pri$ate
respondent, so we hold, are not e)usdem generis as the documents earlier referred to" 8urthermore, they do not contain the specifcs re/uired #y &ection )'(a) and (#) of the title reconstitution law"
The legislation ad$erted to are not enough
to support the petition"
The pri$ate respondent must ha$e suCcient
proof that her predecessor0in0interest had in fact a$ailed himself of the #enefts of the land grant the twin statutes confer"
!roclamation No" )2H(, moreo$er, does not
specifcally name &ultan Kiram as the owner of the lands reser$ed for resettlement" Ihile %ct No" H1H( does, this measure was enacted as far #ac. as )*'+" &ince then, the properties could ha$e undergone successi$e transfers" Do/&m$,!' $=&+$*
The documents alluded to under &ections
'(f) and H(f), fnally, must #e resorted to in the a#sence of those preceding in order" There is no showing here that the pri$ate respondent had in fact sought to secure such prior documents (e3cept with respect to the ownerAs duplicate copy of title, which she claims had #een li.ewise destroyed) and failed to fnd them" This endangers dou#ts, indeed, a#out the e3istence of the alleged title itself" SC REVERSED AND SET ASIDE 11. REPU6LIC VS. RAMOS, GR NO. 1998J1 , ?? FE6 ?010 FACTS: Respondents (heirs of <ulio Ramos) fled a !etition for Reconstitution of 7CT No" HB)H &tated that the late <ulio Ramos, grandfather of herein petitioners, is the original claimant of 9ot No" 21 of the Cadastral &ur$ey They presented 9R% Certifcation, R Certifcation to the eKect that 7CT No" the ownerEs copy of 7CT No" HB)H was lost 9ot No" 21 is declared for ta3ation purposes in the name of <ulio Ramos That there is no document pending registration with the Registry of eeds of -ataan aKecting said 9ot 21" %lleged that 7CT No" HB)H may #e reconstituted on the #asis of the appro$ed plan and technical descriptions and the 9ot ata Computation Respondent Reynaldo Ramos 6edina (Reynaldo), stated that ownerEs copy of TCT was lost during the <apanese occupation RTC: GRANTED RECONSTITUTION #ased on the appro$ed Relocation !lan and Technical escription" CA: DISMISSED >$idence presented are suCcient to grant reconstitution ISSUES: 1. 2ON !($ !+#) /o&! #/=&+$* <&+'*+/!+o, +, !($ $/o,'!+!&!+o, .o/$$*+," 1. NO. T($ !+#) /o&! *+* ,o! #/=&+$ <&+'*+/!+o, o1$ !($ .$!+!+o, fo $/o,'!+!&!+o,. RA ?9 lays down the specifc procedure for the reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certifcates of title" It confers 5urisdiction upon trial courts to hear and decide petitions for 5udicial reconstitution" 4owe$er, #efore said courts can assume 5urisdiction o$er the petition and grant the reconstitution prayed for, the petitioner must o#ser$e certain special re/uirements and mode of procedure prescri#ed #y law" &>C" )'" !etitions for reconstitution 333 The petition shall state or contain, among other things, the followingF a) that the ownerEs duplicate of the certifcate of title had #een lost or destroyedD #) that no co0ownerEs, mortgageeEs, or lesseeEs duplicate had #een issued, or, if any had #een issued, the same had #een lost or destroyedD c) the location area and #oundaries of the property d) the nature and description of the #uilding or impro$ements, if any, which do not #elong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such #uildings or impro$ementsD e) the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, of the owners of the ad5oining properties and of all persons who may ha$e any interest in the propertyD f) a detailed description of the encum#rances, if any, aKecting the propertyD and g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments aKecting the property ha$e #een presented for registration, or if there #e any, the registration thereof has not #een accomplished, as yet" RESPONDENTSC PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION it did not contain an allegation that no co0 ownerEs, mortgageeEs or lessees duplicate had #een issued or, if any had #een issued, the same had #een lost or destroyed" The petition also failed to state the names and addresses of the present occupants of 9ot 21" -ecause of these fatal omissions, the trial court ne$er ac/uired 5urisdiction o$er respondentsE petition" Conse/uently, the proceedings it conducted, as well as those of the C%, are null and $oid" 2ON R$)o/#!+o, S&1$: P)#, #,* T$/(,+/#) D$'/+.!+o, #$ '&O/+$,! $1+*$,/$ fo $/o,'!+!&!+o, of !+!)$ ?. NO. R$'.o,*$,!' f#+)$* !o .$'$,! /om.$!$,! 'o&/$ of $/o,'!+!&!+o,. &ection ' of R% 'B enumerates in the following order the sources from which reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certifcates of title may #e #asedF R$'.o,*$,!' .$*+/#!$ !($+ P$!+!+o, fo R$/o,'!+!&!+o, o, S$/!+o, ?3f5 of RA ?9. presented sur$ey plan, '' technical description, 'H Certifcation issued #y the 9and Registration %uthority, '1 9ot ata Computation, '2 and ta3 declarations" 'B
:nfortunately, these pieces of documentary e$idence are not similar to those mentioned in su#paragraphs (a) to (e) of &ection ' of R% 'B, which all pertain to documents issued or are on fle with the Registry of eeds" !($ '&1$: .)#, #,* !$/(,+/#) *$'/+.!+o, #$ ,o! /om.$!$,! #,* '&O/+$,! 'o&/$' of $/o,'!+!&!+o, 7($, !($ .$!+!+o, +' %#'$* o, S$/!+o, ?3f5 of RA ?9. Mo$o1$, !($ C$!+-/#!+o, A1 +''&$* %: !($ LRA '!#!+," !(#! D$/$$ No. 1909?? 7#' +''&$* fo Lo! 58 m$#,' ,o!(+,". LRA CERTIFICATION: It cannot #e ascertained whether the decree granted or denied RamosE claim" RD CERTIFICATION: it cannot #e deduced therefrom that 7CT No" HB)H was actually issued and .ept on fle with said oCce" NONBSU6MISSION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS SC SETASIDE 1?. REPU6LIC VS. EL GO6IERNO DELAS LSLAS DE FILIPINAS, GR NO. 18??J8,J JUNE ?005 NOT GRANTED FACTS: respondent &e$eriana =acho fled a petition for reconstitution of lost certifcate of title #efore the RTC that portion of lot was #ought from the heirs of Tumula. alleged that the said 9ot No" )1** was owned #y Tirso Tumula. (deceased) which was ad5udged to them #y $irtue of a decision ecree HB2+H2 was issued to said 9ot )1**, in the name of said Tirso Tumula., married to >ngracia !ongasi, #ut which decree was not sal$aged from the last Iorld Iar, #ut its e3istence appears in Cadastral Records There is 7CT in the name of said Tirso Tumula. the ownerEs duplicate copy of the said 7riginal Certifcate of Title issued to 9ot No" )1**, has #een lost during the last Iorld Iar no co0ownerEs copy of said certifcate of title lost has #een issued to a co0owner, mortgagee, or lessee attached the appro$ed plan of the land (tracing cloth), technical description and deed of con$eyance in fa$or of petitioner Respondent =acho oKered as #ases for reconstitution the following documentsF )" Tero3 copy of the ecision dated 6arch H), )*'* in >3p" Cad" No" )?, Record No" *1B (>3hi#it GIG)" '" Inde3 of decrees, (>3hi#it G<G)" H" eed of >3tra0<udicial eclaration of 4eirs with &ale dated 8e#ruary )', )*?* (>3hi#it GKG)" 1" %Cda$it of Conchita 7yao dated 8e#ruary '', )**B (>3hi#it G9G)" 2" Certifcation from the Register of eeds, 9apu09apu City, dated <une *, )**2 (>3hi#it G6G)" B" &.etch plan of 9ot No" )1** (>3hi#it GNG)" ?" Certifed Tero3 copy of the technical description of 9ot No" )1** (>3hi#it GN0)G)" LRA REPORT ecree was issued for lot )1** #ut it is no longer a$aila#le !lan and tech description were $erifed correct thus recommended to grant reconstitution RTC: GRANTED CA:AFFIRMED Co,'+*$$* !($ 19?9 *$/+'+o, 3'!#!+," Lo! No. 1899 +, f#1o of T+'o5 PETITIONER 9ower court erred in granting the petition for reconstitution on the #asis of inde3 of decree, s.etch plan, certifcation, among other documents, which documents are non0accepta#le and insuCcient #ases for reconstitution under R% 'B" TIRSOBNCONCEPCIONB NAGUINALDOHRESTITUTOBNRESPONDENT GAC0O There is suCcient e$idence showing how ownership had #een transferred ISSUE: I7N reconstitution #e granted on the #ases of a Tero3 copy (decision), entry in the inde3 of decrees, s.etch plan, certifcations, technical description and deed of sale, which documents are not accepta#le sources for reconstitution under R% 'B" PETITIONER decree of registration was ne$er presented #y respondentDwhat she presented cannot #e considered as $alid 5udgmentDinde3 of decree is not authenticated T0E DOCUMENTS PRESENTED would naturally not fall under &ec '(a) to (e) of R"%" No" 'B #ut may #e considered under &ec '(f) of R"%" No" 'B, as any other document which, in the 5udgment of the court, is suCcient and proper #asis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certifcate of title" they are not enough #ases for reconstitution of lost original certifcate of title" NO PRO6ATIVE VALUE ON T0E 19?9 DECISION only a certain =eodetic >ngineer certifed that the copy of the decision %N It was not esta#lished that the =eodetic >ngineer is the pu#lic oCcer who is in custody thereof" 0U(#' ,o .o%#!+1$ 1#)&$. INDED OF DECREE showing that ecree No" HB2+H2 was issued for 9ot No" )1**, as a #asis for reconstitution" the name of the applicant as well as the date of the issuance of such decree was illegi#le" !($ .)#,, !($ !$/(,+/#) *$'/+.!+o, of Lo! No. 1899, RD /$!+-/#!+o, these are not the documents referred to under &ection '(f) of R"%" No" 'B #ut are mere additional documents that will accompany the petition to #e forwarded to the 9and Registration %uthority" OT0ER DOCUMENTS the Gother documentsG mentioned in &ection H(f) of R% 'B refer to those enumerated in paragraph 2 of 9RC Circular No" H2 dated <une )H, )*+H MEREL4 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS 3LRC CIRCULAR5 that must accompany the petition to #e forwarded to the 9and Registration authority" GAC0O 2AS NOT A6LE TO PROVE T0E EDISTENCE OF T0E TITLE SOUG0T TO 6E RECONSTITUTED SC REVERSED AND SET ASIDE FOR REFERENCE:LRC CIRCULAR 2" In case the reconstitution is to #e made e3clusi$ely from sources enumerated in &ections ' (f) and H (f) of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B in relation to section )' thereof, the signed duplicate copy of the petition to #e forwarded to this Commission shall #e accompanied #y the followingF a) % duly prepared plan of said parcel of land in tracing cloth, with two (') print copies thereof, prepared #y the go$ernment agency which issued the certifed technical description, or #y a duly licensed =eodetic >ngineer who shall certify thereon that he prepared the same on the #asis of a duly certifed technical description" Ihere the plan as su#mitted is certifed #y the go$ernment agency which issued the same, it is suCcient that the technical description #e prepared #y a duly licensed =eodetic >ngineer on the #asis of said certifed plan" #) The original, two (') duplicate copies, and a 3ero3 copy of the original of the technical description of the parcel of land co$ered #y the certifcate of title, duly certifed #y the authorized oCcer of the -ureau of 9ands or the 9and Registration Commission who issued the technical description" c) % signed copy of the certifcation of the Register of eeds concerned that the original of the certifcate of title on fle in the Registry was either lost or destroyed, indicating the name of the registered owner, if .nown from the other records on fle in said oCce"G &ection ' of R"%" No" 'B'( /uoted in the Court of %ppeals decision enumerates the sources as #ases of reconstitution of the original certifcate of title" To reiterate, they are as followsF &ec" '" 7riginal Certifcates of title shall #e reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may #e a$aila#le, in the following orderF a) The ownerEs duplicate of the certifcate of titleD #) The co0ownerEs, mortgageeEs or lesseeEs duplicate of the certifcate of titleD c) % certifed copy of the certifcate of title, pre$iously issued #y the Register of eeds or #y a legal custodian thereofD d) %n authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may #e, pursuant to which the original certifcate of title was issuedD e) % document, on fle in the Registry of eeds #y which the property, the description of which is gi$en in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encum#ered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original has #een registeredD and f) %ny other document which, in the 5udgment of the court is suCcient and proper #asis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certifcate of title" &ec" H" Transfer certifcates of title shall #e reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may #e a$aila#le, in the following orderF (a) The ownerAs duplicate of the certifcate of titleD (#) The co0ownerAs mortgageeAs, or lesseeAs duplicate of the certifcate of title (c) % certifed copy of the certifcate of title, pre$iously issued #y the register of deeds or #y a legal custodian thereofD (d) The deed of transfer or other document, on fle in the Registry of eeds, containing the description of the property, or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had #een registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer certifcate of title was issuedD (e) % document, on fle in the Registry of eeds #y which the property, the description of which is gi$en in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encum#ered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had #een registeredD and (f) %ny other document which, in the 5udgment of the court, is suCcient and proper #asis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certifcate of title" 1A. REPU6LIC VS. IAC AND SUSUKAN, GR NO.71JA5, A0 APRIL 1991 FACTS 7n ecem#er 'H, )*+' 6utali# &usu.an fled with the Court of 8irst Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of &ulu a petition for reconstitution of the destroyed Transfer Certifcate of Title No" 2BB of the Registrar of eeds of &ulu The petition alleges that 6oro Indulang, grandfather of &usu.an, and 6ahara5ah &acandal are the registered owners of 9ot No" )HH0-" &usu.an along with his father and other relati$es as well as the heirs of &acandal possess and occupy the said lot" 7n 8e#ruary +, )*?1, the original copy of the certifcate of title in the custody of the Registrar of eeds of &ulu was lost and destroyed #y fre #ut the ownerAs duplicate copy remained in the possession of &usu.an" It also alleges that the certifcate of title is free from any lien or encum#rancesD neither was there a deed of instrument aKecting said lot and that no co0ownerAs, mortgageeAs or lesseeAs duplicate copy of the title was e$er issued" 7n 8e#ruary 1, )*+H, the &olicitor =eneral entered his appearance and authorized the pro$incial fscal to represent the same" OPPOSITORS !R fled an opposition to the petition for reconstitution alleging that they are the heirs of 6oro ayang &itti 8atima, the third registered owner of the su#5ect lot" The oppositors further allege that the ownerAs duplicate copy in the possession of &usu.an is not the real or genuine copy of the certifcate of title #ecause the same was copied from a tampered one which erased the name of 6ora ayang &itti 8atima as one of the registered owners" They presented certifcation from -9 that decreed property registered in the names of 6ahara5ah &acandal, 6oro Indulang and 6ora ayang &itti 8atima prayed that the reconstitution #e held in a#eyance until the authentic copy of the decree co$ering said lot is secured from the land registration oCce in 6anila to #e the #asis of reconstitution" COMPROMISE AGREEMENT the name of 6ora ayang &itti 8atima #e included as one of the registered owners of the said lot" 8iscal signed RTC: GRANTED CA:AFFIRMED PETITIONER the act of the pro$incial fscal in signing the compromise agreement which was the sole #asis of the 5udgment of the lower court in granting the petition for reconstitution is not #inding #ecause it $iolated the authority $ested on the fscal e3pressly pro$ided for the decision of the lower court was not supported #y su#stantial e$idence since 7 of TCT presented not relia#le source RESPONDENTS maintain that the authority granted to the pro$incial fscal in the notice of appearance was not $iolated there is su#stantial e$idence in support of the decision of the trial court" ISSUES: ()) Ihether or not the act of the !ro$incial 8iscal of &ulu in signing the compromise agreement dated %ugust '*, )*+H, without frst securing the appro$al of the &olicitor =eneral, is #inding upon the petition 4ES (') Ihether or not there is su#stantial e$idence to support the decision dated %ugust )H, )*+2 of respondent Intermediate %ppellate Court, which aCrmed the decision dated &eptem#er )', )*+H of the trial court granting the petition for reconstitution of T"C"T" No" 2BB of the Registry of eeds of &ulu" ;>& 0ELD: 1. 4ES. !($ #/! of .o1+,/+#) -'/#) +, '+",+," !($ /om.om+'$ #"$$m$,! 7#' +, #//o*#,/$ 7+!( (+' *&!: !o #..$# fo #,* .o!$/! !($ +,!$$'!' of !($ "o1$,m$,! +, /o&! +, .$!+!+o,' fo $/o,'!+!&!+o, )" The power or authority of the pro$incial fscal #y himself and not merely in representation of the &olicitor =eneral, to appear for and protect the interests of the go$ernment in reconstitution cases" 9RC CIRC:9%R )" %ll petitions for reconstitution shall #e directly fled in duplicate with the cler. of court of the Regional Trial Court of the pro$ince or city where the property is situated ser$ing copies thereof and its anne3es to the followingF a" The Registrar of eeds concerned #" The irector of 9ands c" The &olicitor =eneral d" The corresponding !ro$incial or City 8iscal" the a#sence of any opposition on the part of the go$ernment to the petition for reconstitution shows that the go$ernment has no contrary e$idence 0ELDP ?. T($ #))$"#!+o, of ,o '&O/+$,! %#'$' +' ,o! .o1$*. &ection H of Repu#lic %ct No" ' pro$ides for the sources or #ases for reconstitution of certifcates of title )" &usu.an presented the ownerAs duplicate of the certifcate of title" '" upon an o#5ection raised #y the oppositors on the #asis of the a#sence of the name of one of the registered owners, said oppositors presented two other documents, namely the certifcate from the -ureau of 9ands and a copy of the decision of the lower court to pro$e not only the ownership of the third registered owner #ut of all the registered owners" T($'$ *o/&m$,!' $#*+): f#)) &,*$ S$/!+o, A 3f5 of R$.&%)+/ A/! No. ?9. SC AFFIRMED 18. REPU6LIC VS. CATARROJA, GR NO.171778, 1? FE6 ?010 8actsF This is a#out a petition for reconstitution of a lost original certifcate of title in which the respondents ha$e #een una#le to present e$idence that such title had in fact #een issued #y an appropriate land registration court" Respondents %polinario Catarro5a, Reynaldo Catarro5a, and Rosita Catarro5a0 istrito (the Catarro5as) fled a petition for reconstitution of lost original certifcate of title co$ering two lots in Vapang, Ternate, Ca$ite, one with an area of 'B*,B*2 s/uare meters and the other with an area of 21B,'H* s/uare meters" The Catarro5as alleged that they inherited these lands from their parents, 8ermin and &ancha Catarro5a, who reportedly applied for their registration with the Court of 8irst Instance of Ca$ite sometime #efore the last world war" ' The 9and Registration %uthority (9R%) issued a certifcation on %ugust H, )**+ and a report on 8e#ruary 1, '((', confrming that the land registration court issued ecree ?1**H' on 6ay '), )*1) co$ering the su#5ect lots" 4owe$er, the copy was no longer a$aila#le on records" The 9R% report $erifed as correct the plans and technical descriptions of the su#5ect lots which had #een appro$ed under 9R% !R0)*(1' and 9R% !R0)*(1H" RESPONDENTS C#!#o<#' pursuant to the decree, the Register of eeds of Ca$ite issued an original certifcate of title to their parents" #ased on a certifcation issued #y the Register of eeds, the original on fle with it was lost in the fre that gutted the old Ca$ite capitol #uilding The ownerEs duplicate copy of the title had #een lost while with their parents"
RTC: GRANTEDQ CA: REVERSED T0EN AMENDED 3GRANTED5 ISSUE: 2ON the C% erred in fnding suCcient e$idence to grant the petition for reconstitution of title" 0ELD: R"%" 'B go$erns the reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certifcates of title" Its &ection ' enumerates the following sources for the reconstitution of such titlesF )" )" %dmittedly, the Catarro5as ha$e #een una#le to present any of the documents mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) a#o$e" Their parents allegedly lost the ownerEs duplicate certifcate of title" '" '" The 9R% itself no longer has a copy of the original decree or an authenticated copy of it" 9i.ewise, the Register of eeds did not ha$e any document of encum#rance on fle that shows the description of the property" T($ o,): *o/&m$,!#: $1+*$,/$ !($ C#!#o<#' /o&)* .o*&/$ #' .o''+%)$ 'o&/$' fo !($ $/o,'!+!&!+o, of !($ )o'! !+!)$ #$ !(o'$ o!($ *o/&m$,!' *$'/+%$* +, .##"#.( 3f5. )" The 6icroflm printouts of the 7Ccial =azette showing a notice of hearing D% certifcation issued #y the 9R% '" The Register of eeds also certifed that all their records were lost in the <une ?, )*2* fre"D The Report of the 9R% H" %n %Cda$it of 9oss " The a#o$e documents of the Catarro5as fall in the same class as those enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (e)" In Repu#lic $" Tuastum#an, the Court ruled that the documents must come from oCcial sources which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors0in0interest" None of the documents presented in this case ft such description" C#!#o<#' f#+)$* !o '(o7 !(#! !($: $I$!$* $Mo!' !o )oo@ fo #,* #1#+) of !($ 'o&/$' +, .##"#.(' 3#5 !o 3$5 %$fo$ #1#+)+," !($m'$)1$' of !($ 'o&/$' +, .##"#.( 3f5. may #e resorted to only in the a#sence of the preceding documents in the list" REGUIREMENTS fo $/o,'!+!&!+o,: (a) that the certifcate of title had #een lost or destroyedD (#) that the documents presented #y petitioner are suCcient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certifcate of titleD (c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest thereinD (d) that the certifcate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyedD and (e) that the description, area and #oundaries of the property are su#stantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certifcate of title" )" 6ICR78I96F not proof that a certifcate of title was in fact issued in the name of the Catarro5asE parents" '" The pu#lication in the 7Ccial =azette only pro$ed that the couple too. the initial step of pu#lishing their claim to the property" H" %lthough the 9R%Es certifcation and its report confrmed the issuance of a decree, these documents do not suCciently pro$e that a title had in fact #een issued to the parents of the Catarro5as pursuant to such decree" 1" &ignifcantly, %ct 1*B (the )*(H 9and Registration %ct) which was then in force recognized two .inds of decrees in land registration proceedingsF frst, a decree issued under &ection H? that dismisses the application and, second, a decree issued under &ection H+ confrming title of ownership and its registration" Iithout proof that 7CT has in fact #een issued, they cannot claim %#sent a clear and con$incing that their predecessors succeeded in ac/uiring title to the su#5ect lots" &C R>P>R&> 15. R$.&%)+/ 1' CA, S.o&'$' D#:#o, G.R. No. 101990 A&"&'! ?A, 1995 F#/!':
6arch )B, )*+* pri$ate respondents
fled with the RTC !etition for Reconstitution of TCT No" T0H(1)*+, on the ground that its original was among the documents destroyed in the conNagration"
The trial court fnds the petition to #e
suCcient in form and su#stance and set the hearing"
uring the hearing, pri$ate respondents
su#mitted in e$idence, among others, the following GCertifcation of !u#licationG issued #y the irector of the National !rinting 7Cce"
4owe$er, they did not su#mit nor oKer in
e$idence actual copies of the <une )', )*+* and <une )*, )*+* issues of the $%cial &a'ette"
7cto#er *, )*+* the trial court issued
an 7rder granting pri$ate respondentsA petition for reconstitution"
The 7rder was aCrmed #y the Court of
%ppeals on 8e#ruary '+, )**)" It held thatF o %ccording to the Repu#lic, the certifcation of pu#lication issued #y the National !rinting 7Cce is not suCcient proof of pu#lication, the #est e$idence #eing the presentation of the copies of the 7Ccial =azette where the notice was included" o 4owe$er, the C% held that the certifcation clearly states that the notice was pu#lished in the <une )', )*+* and <une )*, )*+* issues of the 7Ccial =azette, the second notice #eing released for pu#lication on <une '+, )*+*" -e it stressed that the oCcial acts of pu#lic oCcers en5oy the presumption of regularity and this has not #een o$ercome in this case" I''&$:
Ihether or not pri$ate respondents $alidly
complied with the re/uirements of notice #y pu#lication, posting, and mailing and the e3plicit pro$isions of 9"R"C" Circular No" H2, &eries of )*+H" 0$)*:
;es"
!etitioner argues that Gthe trial court did
not ac/uire 5urisdiction o$er the petition for reconstitution of TCT No" T0 H(1)*+G
#ecause pri$ate respondents failed to pro$e actual pu#lication of the trial courtAs 7rder setting the petition for initial hearing" !etitioner posits the $iew that Ga mere certifcation of pu#lication is utterly inade/uate to comply with the 5urisdictional re/uirement of pu#lication " " "D (t)he #est e$idence to pro$e (the fact of pu#lication) is the presentation of the actual copies of the 7Ccial =azette " " ", duly mar.ed and oKered as e$idence in Court"
Reconstitution of title under R% No" 'B is
an action in rem, which means it is one directed not only against particular persons, #ut against the thing itself"
Its o#5ect is to #ar indiKerently all who might #e minded to ma.e any o#5ection against the right sought to #e enforced, hence the 5udgment therein is #inding theoretically upon the whole world"
The 5urisdictional re/uirements of pu#lication, posting and ser$ice of notice are pro$ided in &ection )H of R"%" No" 'B, as followsF o &ec" )H" The court shall cause a notice of the petition, fled under the preceding section, to #e pu#lished, at the e3pense of the petitioner, twice in successi$e issues of the $%cial &a'ette, and to #e posted on the main entrance of the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at the pro$incial #uilding and of the municipal #uilding at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing" The court shall li.ewise cause a copy of the notice to #e sent, #y registered mail or otherwise, at the e3pense of the petitioner, to e$ery person named therein whose address is .nown, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing" " " " The petitioner shall, at the hearing, su#mit proof of the pu#lication, posting and ser$ice of the notice as directed #y the court"
%nent the pu#lication re/uirement, R" %"
No" 'B o#ligates the petitioner to prove to the trial court two things, namely thatF ()) its 7rder gi$ing due course to the petition for reconstitution and setting it for hearing was pu#lished twice, in two consecuti$e issues of the $%cial &a'etteD and (') such pu#lication was made at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing" In the case at #ench, pri$ate respondents were a#le to show both elements through the certifcation of the irector of the National !rinting 7Cce, a go$ernment oCcial who en5oys the undisputed presumption of regularity in the performance of the functions of his oCce" Ie note that, on the other hand, mere su#mission of the su#5ect $%cial &a'ette issues would ha$e e$idenced only the frst element"
!etitionerAs reliance on the -est >$idence
Rule is erroneous" Ihat must #e pro$ed under &ection )H, R" %" No" 'B is not the content of the 7rder pu#lished in the $%cial &a'ette, #ut the fact of two0 time pu#lication in successi$e issues thereof at least thirty days #efore the hearing date"
!etitioner ne3t argues that Gpri$ate
respondents failed to comply with 9and Registration Commission (9"R"C") Circular No" H2, &eries of )*+H"
!etitioner #elie$es that Gthe report of the
%dministrator of the N%9TR% (now 9RC%) and the comments and fndings of the Register of eeds are conditions sine 3ua non #efore a petition for reconstitution could #e granted so as to forestall, if not eliminate, anomalous or irregular reconstitution of lost or destroyed certifcates of title"G
Thus, it argues, pri$ate respondentsA failure to show compliance with these re/uirements is fatal to their petition for reconstitution"
It is true that 9"R"C" Circular No" H2, &eries
of )*+H mandates the 9and Registration Commission %dministrator and the Register of eeds concerned to su#mit their reports and recommendations regarding the petition for reconstitution to the court"
-ut, it attaches no concomitant o#ligation on the petitioner to show compliance #y said oCcials" It would, thus, #e illogical in the case at #ench to re/uire such showing #y pri$ate respondents #efore their petition may #e acted upon" 19. R#"&# 1' CA, G.R. No'. JJ5?1B?? J#,&#: A1, ?000 F#/!': R$ : G .R . No' . JJ5?1B??
>ulalio Ragua, claimed to #e the
registered owner, together with other co0 owners, fled with the C8I a petition for reconstitution of 7riginal Certifcate Title (7CT) No" BH' co$ering a parcel of land with an area of 1,H**,H'' s/uare meters, as e$idenced #y plan #earing No" II01+)B, .nown as the iliman >state, situated in the municipality of Caloocan, pro$ince of Rizal" %ttached to the petition was a photostatic copy of 7CT No" BH' and a photostatic copy of the plan of the property as sur$eyed"
Tuason fled with the C8I an opposition to
the petition alleging thatF o 7CT No" BH' was fctitious and the land was co$ered #y TCT No" )H2B in the name of !eopleAs 4omesite and 4ousing Corporation (!44C)" o TCT No" )H2B originated from 7CT No" ?H2 of the Registry of eeds of Rizal, registered in the name of TuasonAs predecessor0in0interest" o the $alidity of 7CT No" ?H2 had #een declared as #eyond 5udicial re$iew in the case of ;a5imo -" vs" ;ariano !evere Tuason, ))* !hil" B)'"
!44C succeeded #y the National 4ousing
%uthority (N4%), fled with the same trial court its opposition to RaguaAs petition for reconstitution of 7CT No" BH' and a$erred thatF o RaguaAs petition did not comply with the re/uirements of the law on 5udicial reconstitution" o that 7CT No" BH' in the name of >ulalio Ragua was fctitious, and that the property was co$ered #y TCT No" )H2B in the name of !44C"
uring the pendency of the petition,
&ulpicio %li3 applied for, and o#tained from the Register of eeds of Quezon City, an administrati$e reconstitution of 7CT No" BH'"
Tuason fled with the C8I of Quezon City a
complaint for annulment of 7CT No" BH' and su#se/uent transfer certifcates of titles (TCTs) originating therefrom, against the Register of eeds of Quezon City and allegedF o that Ragua and@or %li3 .nowingly caused to #e reconstituted administrati$ely in the Register of eeds of Quezon City, a fa.e 7CT No" BH' co$ering 1,H**,H'' s/uare meters of land situated in iliman, Quezon City"
The Repu#lic fled with the C8I its
opposition to the petition alleging that it was owner of the land including the #uildings and impro$ements thereon, now .nown as the Peterans 6emorial 4ospital (P64), ac/uired from the !44C" The P64 site was part of the land ac/uired #y !44C from Tuason under TCT No" )H2B, originally co$ered #y TuasonAs 7CT No" ?H2, the $alidity of which was 5udicially recognized #y the &upreme Court"
%fter due hearing, the court ordered to
reconstitute in the name of >ulalio Ragua 7riginal Certifcate of Title No" BH'"
:pon appeal, the Court of %ppeals
re$ersed the order of the trial court for the reconstitution of 7CT BH' in the name of Ragua" It held thatF o the trial court had no 5urisdiction o$er the petition for reconstitution for failure to comply with the 5urisdictional re/uirements of pu#lication and posting of notices pro$ided under Repu#lic %ct No" 'B, &ections )' and )H" The Court of %ppeals ruled that assuming arguendo that the trial court had 5urisdiction o$er the petition, the e$idence presented in court to support the application was du#ious in character and insuCcient to 5ustify the reconstitution" o the land in /uestion was em#raced in 7CT No" ?H2, issued in the name of Tuason, the $alidity of which was upheld #y the &upreme Court in se$eral cases" The trial court could not proceed with the reconstitution proceedings without TuasonAs title and those originating therefrom #eing annulled frst" "e : * ." . Nos . /0122327
!etitioners ufourt and Regalado were
owners of 12 and 22 hectares, respecti$ely, of the same parcel of land .nown as the iliman >state, which was su#5ect of the petition for 5udicial reconstitution of 7CT No" BH', fled #y >ulalio Ragua" They alleged thatF o they ac/uired the property #y $irtue of deeds of assignment e3ecuted #y >ulalio Ragua in their fa$or" !etitionersA rights and interests o$er the a#o$e property ha$e #een confrmed #y the Court of %ppeals in C%0="R" CP No" '(?()"
!etitioners fled with the C8I a motion for
e3ecution of the 5udgment rendered #y it, contending that the 5udgment had #ecome fnal after the Register of eeds and 9and Registration Commission failed to fle an appeal within the prescri#ed period"
The trial court denied the motion for
e3ecution and appro$ed the record on appeal fled #y the Repu#lic of the !hilippines"
!etitioners fled with the Court of %ppeals,
a motion to dismiss the appeal, which the court denied"
The sur$i$ing heirs of Ragua, assisted #y
5udicial administratri3 Norma =" %/uino, fled with this Court a manifestation oKering to e3ecute deeds of donations in fa$or of the go$ernment and its instrumentalities, of all portions of the real property actually occupied #y oCces performing go$ernmental functions, including roads and par.ing areas" I''&$: Ihether or not the trial court ac/uired 5urisdiction o$er the proceedings for reconstitution of title due to non0compliance with the 5urisdictional re/uirements prescri#ed for reconstitution of tittlesD Ihether or not the e$idence of the sources of the title to #e reconstituted was suCcient #asis therefor" 0$)*: %s to <urisdictionF o !etitioners did not comply with the re/uirements set in &ection )' (d), (e) and (g), namely, the petition did not stateF ()) the nature and description of the #uildings or impro$ements, if any, which do not #elong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such #uildings or impro$ementsD (') the names and addresses of the occupants of the ad5oining property and of all persons who may ha$e any interest in the propertyD and (H) that no deeds or other instrument aKecting the property ha$e #een presented for registration Ie ha$e ruled that the failure to comply with the re/uirements of pu#lication and posting of notices prescri#ed in Repu#lic %ct No" 'B, &ections )' and )H is fatal to the 5urisdiction of the court" 4ence, non0compliance with the 5urisdictional re/uirements renders its decision appro$ing the reconstitution of 7CT No" BH' and all proceedings therein utterly null and $oid" %s to e$idenceF o The Court of %ppeals held that the documents su#mitted were du#ious in character and could not #e proper sources of reconstitution of 7CT No" BH'" This is a factual fnding that we cannot re$iew in this re$iew on certiorari. EirstF Regarding !lan II01+)B and microflm of !lan II01+)B, the Court of %ppeals found that there were conNicting reports regarding their authenticity as there was showing of splicing of the microflm, which tainted its genuineness" Conse/uently, !lan II01+)B cannot #e considered as genuine e$idence for reconstitution" !econdF the application for registration of title of >ulalio Ragua, duly certifed #y Commissioner No#le5as did not indicate that the application was appro$ed" 4ence, it can not constitute proof of the title supposedly issued su#se/uently" Neither was there proof that such application was pu#lished in the $%cial &a'ette as re/uired #y law" ThirdF the photographic copy of 7CT No" BH' was not authenticated #y the Register of eeds" EourthF the copy of ecree No" B*?(, can not #e considered as competent e$idence #ecause 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 co$ered" EifthF the ta3 declarations co$ering the property do not pro$e ownership o$er the land o Conse/uently, we agree with the Court of %ppeals that none of the source documents presented was relia#le" Ie are con$inced that the factual fndings of the Court of %ppeals are supported #y suCcient e$idence and, thus, #inding on this Court" 6oreo$er, petitioners fled the petition for reconstitution of 7CT BH' nineteen ()*) years after the title was allegedly lost or destroyed" Ie thus consider petitioners guilty of laches" '? 9aches is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasona#le time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has a#andoned or declined to assert it" The reconstitution of a title is simply the reissuance of a new duplicate certifcate of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition" H( G Conse/uently, as the purported sources of the title to #e reconstituted were du#ious, the trial court erred in ma.ing use of them for the reconstitution of the title in the name of >ulalio Ragua" Reconstitution of Ragua 7CT is in$alid" 17.P+,o!$ 1' D&)#:, G.R. No. LB59998 J&): ?, 1990 F#/!':
8rancisco !" 7tto, representing his mother
!etra !inote, fled in the C8I of Ce#u a $erifed petition for reconstitution of the original certifcate of title to 9ot 'H+) of the 7pon Cadastre, which, as shown #y a certifed copy of the 6unicipal Inde3 of ecrees was supposedly ad5udicated to &aturnino, <uana, Irineo, ,edro, and !etronilo, all surnamed !inote, under ecree No" 'H(B(?"
The petition allegedF
o that the original, as well as ownerAs duplicate certifcate of title, were #urned in the 7pon municipal #uilding during Iorld Iar II, and the same could not #e located despite diligent searchD o that there were no annotations or liens and encum#rances on the title aKecting the sameD o that no deed or instrument aKecting the property had #een presented for registration
The court set the case for hearing and a
copy of the notice of hearing was ordered to #e pu#lished in accordance with the mandatory re/uirements"
It does not appear, howe$er, that notices
were sent to each of the registered co0 owners J &aturnino, <uana, Irineo, !edro and !etronilo, all surnamed !inote, or their heirs, so that they could ha$e #een heard on the petition"
No opposition"
The Court issued an order directing the
Register of eeds of 9apu09apu City to reconstitute the original certifcate of title of 9ot 'H+) of the 7pon Cadastre, in the names of &%T:RNIN7 !IN7T>, married to 6aria Igot, <:%N%, IRIN>7, ,<TR# (not !edro) and !>TR7NI97, all surnamed !inote"
!ursuant to the courtAs order, 7riginal
Certifcate of Title No" R70'H22 of the Register of eeds of 9apu09apu City was issued in the their names"
Counsel for the heirs of !edro, <uana and
&aturnino !inote, supposedly all deceased, fled a motion for reconsideration of the courtAs order, and sought the re0opening of the proceedings and the rectifcation of the <une ?, )*?* order, for, while 7ttoAs main petition for reconstitution #ased on the 6unicipal Inde3 of ecrees, alleged that 9ot 'H+) was decreed in the names of Irineo, <uana, &aturnino,,edro, and !etronilo, all surnamed !inote, the courtAs order of <une ?, )*?* ordered the reconstitution of the title in the names of &aturnino, <uana, Irineo, ,etra (instead of !edro) and !etronilo, all surnamed !inote" The heirs of !edro !inote claimed that they Glearned of the errorG only on &eptem#er '?, )*?* through their counsel, who made the in/uiry and o#tained a copy of the court order"
7n ecem#er ', )*?*, the court issued an
order denying the motion for reconsideration on the ground thatF o W the petition for reconstitution of title wherein 9ot 'H+) of the 7pon Cadastre was allegedly decreed in the names of Irineo, <uana, &aturnino, !edro and !etronilo, all surnamed !inote" uring the hearing of this petition, no opposition was registered thereto and the e$idence adduced #y the petitioner shows clearly that an original certifcate of title co$ering su#5ect lot was issued in fa$or of &aturnino, <uana, Irineo, !etra, and !etronilo, all surnamed !inote, co0 owners and #rothers and sistersD that the original, as well as the ownersA duplicate, was #urned in the 7pon municipal #uilding during the last warD that there were no annotations on this title aKecting the sameD that the so0called inde3 of decree showing that !edro !inote is one of the co0owners is erroneous and it should instead read as G!etraG since they are the #rothers and sistersD and that this fact is also reNected in the e3tract of the decision of the cadastral court" I''&$:
Ihether or not the reconstitution
proceedings should #e reopened and the order of reconstitution dated <une ?, )*?* should #e rectifed or amended" 0$)*:
No"
%s the petition for reconstitution of title
was a proceeding in rem, compliance with the re/uirements of R"%" 'B is a condition sine 3ua non for the conferment of 5urisdiction on the court ta.ing cognizance of the petition" Considering that #oth the petition and the courtAs notice of hearing, referred to the reconstitution of the title of 9ot 'H+) in the names of the registered co0owners, &aturnino !inote married to 6aria Igot, <uana, Irineo, !edro and !etronilo, all surnamed !inote, the cadastral court had 5urisdiction only to grant or deny the prayer of the petition as pu#lished in the notice of hearing"
The court could not recei$e e$idence
pro$ing that !etra !inote, instead of !edro, is a registered co0owner of 9ot 'H+)" The reconstitution or reconstruction of a certifcate of title literally and within the meaning of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B denotes restoration of the instrument which is supposed to ha$e #een lost or destroyed in its original form and condition" The purpose of the reconstitution of any document, #oo. or record is to ha$e the same reproduced, after o#ser$ing the procedure prescri#ed #y law, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred"
The 5urisdiction of the cadastral court is
hedged in #y the four walls of the petition and the pu#lished notice of hearing which defne the su#5ect matter of the petition" If the court o$ersteps those #orders, it acts without or in e3cess of its 5urisdiction in the case"
7n the #asis of the allegations of the
petition and the pu#lished notice of hearing, the heirs of !edro !inote had no reason to oppose the petition for reconstitution for the rights and interest in 9ot 'H+) of their ancestor, !edro !inote, were not ad$ersely aKected #y the petition" It was only when !edroAs name (and in eKect, his interest in 9ot 'H+)) disappeared from the courtAs order of reconstitution that his heirs had cause to rise in arms as it were, and as. for the reopening of the case"
There is no gainsaying the need for courts
to proceed with e3treme caution in proceedings for reconstitution of titles to land under R"%" 'B" >3perience has shown that this proceeding has many times #een misused as a means of di$esting a property owner of the title to his property" Through fraudulent reconstitution proceedings, he wa.es up one day to disco$er that his certifcate of title has #een cancelled and replaced #y a reconstituted title in someone elseAs name" Courts, therefore, should not only re/uire strict compliance with the re/uirements of R"%" 'B #ut, in addition, should ascertain the identity of e$ery person who fles a petition for reconstitution of title to land" If the petition is fled #y someone other than the registered owner, the court should spare no eKort to assure itself of the authenticity and due e3ecution of the petitionerAs authority to institute the proceeding" 1J. R$.&%)+/ 1' CA, S.o&'$' D#:#o, G.R. No. 101990 A&"&'! ?A, 1995 3'#m$ #' P155 19. T#(#,#, D$1$)o.m$,! Co. 1' CA, G.R. No. LB55771 No1$m%$ 15, 19J?
There are three cases recently decided #y
the &upreme Court that are directly related to and s/uarely Identifed with the petition at #arF o irector of 9ands, $s" Court of %ppeals, et al", respondents, =reenfeld e$elopment Corporation, inter$enor, %la#ang e$elopment Corporation and Ramon " -agatsing, inter$enors trial of the petition for 5udicial reconstitution had already #een concluded, the 5udgment thereon granting the reconstitution" o The irector of 9ands, $s" The Court of %ppeals and emetria &ta" 6aria Pda" de -ernal, respondents, =reenfeld e$elopment Corporation, inter$enor, %la#ang e$elopment Corporation and Ramon " -agatsing, inter$enors the 5udgment of the lower court granting the petition for 5udicial reconstitution of Transfer Certifcate of Title No" 1'11* of the Registry of eeds of Rizal in the name of emetria &ta" 6aria Pda" de -ernal co$ering two parcels of land was null and $oid for failure to comply with the mandatory re/uirements of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B and held that TCT No" 1'11* was fa.e and spurious" o %la#ang e$elopment Corp" and Ramon " -agatsing, $s" 4on" 6anuel 8" Palenzuela, et al" ordered the reconstitution from ecree No" )2)?( and the plan and technical descriptions, the alleged certifcate of title, original and ownerAs duplicate copy o$er 9ots ' and 1 indicated in !lan II01H?1 in the name of 6anuela %/uial, was null and $oid"
The instant petition for re$iew assails the
$alidity of the same 5udgment ordering the reconstitution of the Certifcate of Title, original and ownerAs duplicate copy, o$er the same lots, 9ots ' and 1, of the same plan, !lan ))01H?1, in the name of the said 6anuela %/uial"
The !ascuals, claiming as intestate heirs
of 6anuela %/uial who died fled a petition for 5udicial reconstitution of lost certifcate of title under Repu#lic %ct No" 'B and allegedF o That petitioners, #y themsel$es and thru their predecessors0in0 interest 6anuela %/uial ha$e #een and still are in the actual, pu#lic, e3clusi$e, ad$erse, continuous and peaceful occupation of the afore0 descri#ed lands as owners in fee simple since time immemorial, de$oting a small portion thereof to agricultureD o That the said original certifcate of title, original and ownerAs duplicate copies, co$ering said lands ha$e #een lost or destroyed in the last Iorld Iar II and diligent eKorts to locate the same ha$e #een all in $ainD
Notice of 4earing was issued"
The irector of 9ands fled an 7pposition
to the petition on the following groundsF o That said ecree No" )2)?( in 9and Registration Case No" *HB+ was issued in fa$or of >ugenio Tuason, married to 6a3imina =eronimo, and >ugenio T" Changco, married to Romana =atchalian, co$ering a parcel of land with an area of 1'' s/uare meters" o That it is $ery clear that no original certifcate of title had or has #een issued to 6anuela %/uial co$ering 9ots ' and 1, !lan II01H?1D that conse/uently, no original certifcate of title in the name of 6anuela %/uial has #een lostD and that therefore, this instant petition for reconstitution of an alleged lost original certifcate of title has no #asis in fact and in law, there #eing no title to #e reconstituted under Repu#lic %ct No" 'BD o That not all the 5urisdictional facts of the instant case ha$e #een esta#lished and therefore, the Court has not ac/uired 5urisdiction to hear and resol$e the case under Repu#lic %ct No" 'B, for the reason that petitioners thru counsel ha$e failed to ser$e notice of the petition in this case to the owners of the ad5oining properties"
The trial court granted the petition for
reconstitution and heldF o That the documents presented #y the petitioners to esta#lish the e3istence of the prere/uisites to reconstitution of the title in the name of their predecessor0in0 interests were either admitted or not o#5ected to #y %tty" Rodolfo <" 8lores in representation of the irector of 9ands" o That the authenticity of the ecree issued in fa$or of petitionersA predecessor ha$ing #een esta#lished, the ecree >3hi#it T Ashall #ind the land, and /uiet title theretoA and Ashall #e conclusi$e upon all persons, including the Insular =o$ernment and all #ranches thereof,A and Aincontro$erti#leA after one year from the issuance of the ecree (&ec" H(, %ct 1*B)" o That the re/uirements of &ections 2, )', and )H of Repu#lic %ct 'B ha$e #een complied with" The Court has no reason to dou#t the credi#ility of the witnesses for the petitioners, particularly the go$ernment oCcials su#poenaed who had occasion and reason to .now the facts they testifed to, #eing parts of their functions and duties in their respecti$e oCces"
!etitioner Tahanan e$elopment
Corporation fled with the Court a 3uo $erifed !etition To &et %side ecision and Re07pen !roceedings and allegedF o 7ppositor, as the owner of lands not only ad5acent to, #ut in fact o$erlapped #y, the land supposedly co$ered #y the title sought to #e reconstituted, was entitled to personal notice of the petition for reconstitutionD such re/uirement of notice is 5urisdictional, #eing mandated #y section )H of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B, and the conse/uence of failure to comply therewith is that the court ne$er ac/uires 5urisdiction to entertain and hear the petition or render $alid 5udgment thereon" o 7ppositor, as such ad5oining owner, was not gi$en notice of the petition for reconstitutionD these proceedings were instituted, set for hearing, were heard and went to 5udgment without 7ppositorAs .nowledgeD
The Court of %ppeals decided in fa$or of
the petitioner, ruling that respondent <udge did not e3ercise sound discretion in refusing to re0open the case #elow so that Tahanan could protect its property rights which could possi#ly #e impaired #y the reconstitution"
4owe$er, upon motion of pri$ate
respondents, through a &pecial i$ision of 8i$e, respondent Court of %ppeals granted the !ascualAs motion and re$ersed its pre$ious decision of No$em#er )B, )*?*" I''&$:
Ihether or not the trial court properly
ac/uired and was in$ested with 5urisdiction to hear and decide Reconstitution Case No" 2(10! in the light of the strict and mandatory pro$isions of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B" 0$)*:
No"
Repu#lic %ct No" 'B confers 5urisdiction or
authority to the Court of 8irst Instance to hear and decide petitions for 5udicial reconstitution" The %ct specifcally pro$ides the special re/uirements and mode of procedure that must #e followed #efore the court can properly act, assume and ac/uire 5urisdiction or authority o$er the petition and grant the reconstitution prayed for" These re/uirements and procedure are mandatory" The !etition for Reconstitution must allege certain specifc 5urisdictional factsD the notice of hearing must #e pu#lished in the 7Ccial =azette and posted in particular places and the same sent or notifed to specifed persons" &ections )' and )H of the %ct pro$ide specifcally the mandatory re/uirements and procedure to #e followed"
:pon a cursory reading of #oth the
petition for reconstitution and the notice of hearing, it is at once apparent that Tahanan has not #een named, cited or indicated therein as the owner, occupant or possessor of property ad5acent to 9ot ', title to which is sought to #e reconstituted" Neither do the petition and the notice state or mention that Tahanan is the occupant or possessor of a portion of said 9ot '" The result of this omission or failure is that Tahanan was ne$er notifed of the petition for reconstitution and the hearings or proceedings therein"
In complying with the a#o$e order, the
!ascuals simply fled an %mended !etition and although they allegedly undertoo. relocation sur$ey on the su#5ect land #y which the supposed ad5oining owners and claimants may #e defnitely ascertained as well as the, actual occupation and respected addresses, they only included !edro 9" 8lores as the occupant"
The amended !etition notwithstanding,
the omission of Tahanan as ad5oining owner and e$en as occupant of portions of the supposed !ascual property is palpa#le and conspicuous"
It is all too e$ident that the !ascuals in
refling their !etition for Reconstitution in 7cto#er, )*?? doc.eted as Case No" 2(10 !, had no intention to notify nor gi$e cause for notifcation and .nowledge to all ad5acent or #oundary owners, particularly Tahanan"
The Notice of 4earing directed that copies
thereof #e posted only in the #ulletin #oard of the Court of 8irst Instance of !asay City and no more, whereas the law specifcally re/uire that the notice of the petition shall #e posted on the main entrance of the municipality or city on which the land is situated, at the pro$incial #uilding and at the municipal #uilding at least H( days prior to the date of hearing" In the instant case as certifed to #y eputy &heriK %rsenio C" de =uzman, the Notice of 4earing was posted on the #ulletin #oard of the Court of 8irst Instance of Rizal, !asay City -ranch located at the 4all of <ustice, City 4all -uilding, !asay City" >$idently, the Notice of 4earing was not posted at the main entrance of the pro$incial0#uilding in !asig, RizalD it was not posted at the main entrance of the municipal #uilding of 6untinlupa where the land is now comprised in -arrio Cupang, or at least in the municipal #uilding of !arana/ue where -arrio &an ionisio was then em#raced"
The failure or omission to notify Tahanan
as the owner, possessor or occupant of property ad5acent to 9ot ' or as claimant or person ha$ing an interest, title or claim to a su#stantial portion (a#out * hectares more or less) of 9ot ', as well as the failure or omission to post copies of the Notice of 4earing on the main entrance of the municipality on which the land is situated, at the pro$incial #uilding and at the municipal #uilding thereat, are fatal to the ac/uisition and e3ercise of 5urisdiction #y the trial court"
In $iew of these multiple omissions which
constitute noncompliance with the a#o$e0 cited sections of the %ct, the court ruled that said defects ha$e not in$ested the Court with the authority or 5urisdiction to proceed with the case #ecause the manner or mode of o#taining 5urisdiction as prescri#ed #y the statute which is mandatory has not #een strictly followed, there#y rendering all proceedings utterly null and $oid" Ie hold that the mere Notice that Aan interested parties are here#y cited to appear and show cause if any they ha$e why said petition should not #e grantedA is not suCcient for the law must #e interpreted strictlyD it must #e applied rigorously, with e3actness and precision" Ie agree with the ruling of the trial court granting the motion to amend the original petition pro$ided all the re/uisites for pu#lication and posting of notices #e complied with, it appearing that the amendment is /uite su#stantial in nature"
:nder &ection )H of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B,
notice #y pu#lication is not suCcient #ut such notice must #e actually sent or deli$ered to parties aKected #y the petition for reconstitution" ?0. ALA6ANG DEV;T CORP VS. VALENFUELA, GR NO.58098,A0 AUG 19J? 8%CT&F 0 !etitioners, %la#ang e$elopment Corp"and -agatsing are registered owners of a huge parcel of land located in 6untinlupa" 0 that TCT Nos" )?2''H to )?2'H2 were the su#5ect of petition for Consolidation0 &u#di$ision !lan !C& 2+?+, 9RC Record No" B)H? after appro$al #y the -ureau of 9ands and the 9and Registration Commission on petition of %la#ang e$elopment Corporation with the Court of 8irst Instance of Rizal, -ranch TIII 0 that after hearing the Court issued an order dated %pril )*, )*B*, #y $irtue of which the Register of eeds of Rizal issued among others si3ty0se$en (B?) Transfer Certifcates of Titles 0 that said parcels of land surrounded #y a high perimeter wall on their #oundaries were sold to innocent purchasers in good faith for $alua#le consideration as part of %la#ang 4ills Pillage &u#di$ision, owned #y petitioner %la#ang e$elopment Corporation, many of whom were already issued in turn the corresponding Transfer Certifcates of Title in their fa$or" 0 that these innocent purchasers for $alue ha$e #een in open, actual, ad$erse, continuous, notorious and uninterrupted possession of their respecti$e lands since )*B*" 0 Respondents, !ascuals, were the parties who instituted a reconstitution of lost title case 0 It was only fled in )*?? 0 Respondents claim that their title was lost H( years earlier or during Iorld Iar II 0 Ther title was allegedly issued pursuant to decree )2)?( dated 6arch 1, )*)1 0 %s prayed for court issued on <une '?, )*+(, a temporary restraining order to pre$ent the R of Rizal from issuing a reconstituted title to the respondents" 0 Respondents allege that respondents fled a #elated inter$ention and motion for new trial which were denied #y the respondent <udge, nd since neither of them appealed, the petition for certiorari is now #ared #y laches" 0 That petitioner %la#ang e$elopment Corp is an intangi#le <uridical !erson incapa#le of physical possession of the property and petitioner -agatsin is a .nown resident of 6anila is not in physical possession or occupation of any property ad5acent to the property in /uestion" 0 that the /uestion of #oundary owners not ha$ing #een notifed is a factual /uestion not determina#le a priori #ut in a proper action for ownership of any o$erlapping 0 that if there is any Gsensi#le /uestionG raised in the petition, the same is ownership o$er the alleged o$erlappings which cannot #e sweepingly ad5udicated in a certiorari proceeding or a reconstitution case Gespecially if a good issue is on the $alidity of petitionersA titles 0 Gthat non05oinder of some alleged owners would render ineKecti$e any 5udgment petitioners may get in these proceedings 0 that the e3istence of respondentsA title is indu#ita#ly esta#lished with the e3istence of the corresponding decree in the 9and Registration Commission which was e3amined and found authentic and genuine #y N-I and !C handwriting e3perts, appro$ed plans reproduced from the microflm, sur$ey plan, and relocation and $erifcation plans in the -ureau of 9ands 0 all go$ernment documentD and that pri$ate respondents ha$e #een in continuous possession of the land and ha$e #een up to date in the payment of land ta3es thereof" 0 %fter #oth parties su#mitted their respecti$e memoranda, =reenfeld e$Et Corp" inter$ened #ecause a portion of what was #eing claimed in the reconstituted title is part of their property" 0 !etitioners are see.ing help from the court to stop the respondent <udge from issuing@granting the reconstitution of the lost title" 0 RTCF =ranted reconstitution 0 The Court is called upon to allow such inter$ention of an indispensa#le party Gin $iew of the higher and greater interest of the pu#lic and in order to administer 5ustice consistent with a 5ust, speedy and ine3pensi$e determination of the respecti$e claims of the parties and their numerous successors0in0interest 0 !etitioners went to &C through a petition for certiorari" I&&:>F 0 Ihether or not the respondents complied with the re/uirements re/uired for <urisdiction in reconstitution cases" 4>9F 0 The &upreme Court held that the petition for reconsituttion did not meet the re/uired contents namelyF a" that the ownerAs duplicate of the certifcate of title had #een lost or destroyedD #" that no co0ownerAs, mortgageeAs or lesseeAs duplicate had #een issued, or, if any had #een issued, the same had #een lost or destroyedD c" the location, area and #oundaries of the propertyD d" the nature and description of the #uildings or impro$ements, if any, which do not #elong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such #uildings or impro$ementsD e" the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, of the owners of the ad5oining properties and of all persons who may ha$e any interest in the propertyD f" a detailed description of the encum#rances, if any, aKecting the propertyD and g" a statement that no deeds or other instruments aKecting the property ha$e #een presented for registration, or, if there #e any, the registration thereof has not #een accomplished, as yet" 0 :pon e3amination of the su#5ect petition for reconstitution, the Court notes that some essential data re/uired in section )' and section )H of Repu#lic %ct 'B ha$e #een omittedF the nature and description of the #uildings or impro$ements, which do not #elong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such #uildings or impro$ements, and the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, of the owners of the ad5oining properties and of all persons who may ha$e any interest in the property" Neither do these data appear in the Notice of 4earing"
such that no ad5oining owner, occupant or possessor was e$er ser$ed a copy thereof #y registered mail or otherwise 0 %fter passing upon the 5urisdiction issue, the Court cannot 5ust let go unmentioned its o#ser$ation that the lots in$ol$ed in this reconstitution case are part of the sur$ey plan (!lan II01H?H) allegedly co$ering also 9ots ) and H which are in$ol$ed in the 7ernal case" In other words, these lots are co$ered #y the same sur$ey plan and they are contiguous" 0 7n No$em#er 2, )*?), 6r" %nselmo %lmazan, then Chief of Reconstruction &ection upon re/uest of the interested party, issued technical descriptions for 9ots ) and H of II01H?1" (This document was su#mitted to the Court as part of the petition for reconstitution of title Lpp" ) and ' of folioM) %s to how the data were reconstituted #y the then Chief of Reconstruction &ection in the a#sence of the original copy of the plan is not .nown" This not our standard operating procedure since we always issue technical descriptions #ased on a$aila#le appro$ed sur$ey records" 0 %s the Court accepted and appro$ed in the 7ernal case the a#o$e fnal report on the relocation0$erifcation sur$ey of the regional oCcer of the -ureau of 9ands and admitted it as e$idence of the falsity of the sur$ey plan in /uestion, there is no reason for this Court not to use it li.ewise as #asis for reaching the conclusion that 9ots ' and 1 supposedly co$ered #y the same &ur$ey !lan II01H?1 are purely imaginary and Gdo not actually e5ist on the ground"G 0 8urthermore, the courts must li.ewise ma.e sure that indispensable parties, i.e. the actual owners and possessors of the lands in$ol$ed, are duly ser$ed with actual and personal notice of the petition (not by mere general publication), particularly where the lands in$ol$ed constitute prime de$eloped commercial land including a part of the &outh &uperhighway" 0 The Court stresses once more that lands already co$ered #y duly issued e3isting Torrens titles (which #ecome incontro$erti#le upon the e3piration of one year from their issuance under section H+ of the land Registration %ct) cannot #e the su#5ect of petitions for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles fled #y third parties without frst securing #y fnal 5udgment the cancellation of such e3isting titles" 0 n view of these multiple omissions which constitute non>compliance with the above cited sections of the #ct, We rule that said defects have not invested the "ourt with the authority or )urisdiction to proceed with the case because the manner or mode of obtaining )urisdiction as prescribed by the statute which is mandatory has not been strictly followed, thereby rendering all proceedings utterly null and void" Ie hold that the mere Notice that Aall interested parties are here#y cited to appear and show cause if any they ha$e why said petition should not #e grantedA is not suCcient for the law must #e interpreted strictlyD it must #e applied rigorously, with e3actness and precision" Ie agree with the ruling of the trial court granting the motion to amend the original petition pro$ided all the re/uisites for pu#lication and posting of notices #e complied with, it appearing that the amendment is /uite su#stantial in nature" %s Ie pointed a#o$e, respondent emetria &ta" 6aria Pda" de -ernal failed to comply with all the re/uirements for pu#lication and posting of notices, which failure is fatal to the )urisdiction of the "ourt" 0 The courts simply ha$e no )urisdiction o$er petitions #y such third parties for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles o$er lands that are already covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly registered owners" The $ery concept of stability and indefeasibility of titles co$ered under the Torrens &ystem of registration rules out as anathema the issuance of two certifcates of title o$er the same land to two diKerent holders thereof" 0 TR7 made permanent 0 <udgment of reconstitution of title set aside" ?1. SERRA SERRA VS. CA, GR NO. A80J0, ?? MARC0 1991 8actsF 0 In ecem#er )*B?, 4ernaezes fled for reconstitution of lost title #efore the C8I" 0 The petition was supported #y certifcation from R that no certifcates of title has #een issued co$ering said properties" 0 In %pril )*B+, the petition was granted and a reconstituted 7CT was issued" 0 These reconstituted 7CTs were cancelled upon the surrender of the 4ernaezes together with a declaration of heirship" Thus new TCTs in their name were issued" 0 :pon learning of the e3istence of the a#o$e transfer certifcates of title, &al$ador &erra &erra, for and in #ehalf of his co0heirs (&erras, for #re$ity), fled with the Registry of eeds an ad$erse claim against the reconstituted certifcates of title in the name of the 4ernaezes" They also fled in Cadastral Case No" )?, =9R7 Records No" )BH, a motion for cancellation of said certifcates of title (%nne3 G9G), claiming that they are holders of $alid e3isting certifcates of titles and that they are in actual possession of the properties co$ered #y the reconstituted certifcates of titles since #efore the war" 0 &erra &erras also fled a motion for cancellation of certifcates in the Cadastral case" 0 The udge denied the motion for cancellation" 0 6eanwhile the 4ernaezes fled for a writ of possession which was granted" 0 &erra &erras fled for petition for certiorari #efore the C% to cancel the certiifcates and to restrain the writ of possession" 0 Ihile case was pending, a certain =araygay entered into a contract of ha$est with the 4ernaezes and thus too. sugarcanes from the land" !etitioners sought the return of these sugarcanes" I&&:>F 0 Ihether or not the respondents are #ound #y the order granting reconstitution #ecause notices ha$e #een pu#lished #ut personal notice were not sent" 4>9F 0 No" -ecause in petition for reconstitution of titles, actual owners and possessors of land in$ol$ed must #e duly ser$ed with actual and personal notice of the petition" 0 %fter studying the frst petition carefully, Ie hold that the issuance of the writ of possession #y <udge %#iera after the motion for cancellation of the reconstituted certifcates of title fled #y petitioners was dismissed and under the circumstances o#taining in this case, was not proper" 0 Conse/uently, the lifting of the pre$iously issued writ of preliminary in5unction #y the respondent appellate court, resulting in the enforcement of the writ of possession issued #y the trial court and the dispossession of the petitioners of the su#5ect properties was a gra$e a#use of discretion amounting to a lac. of 5urisdiction" 0 In a land registration case, a writ of possession may #e issued only pursuant to a decree of registration in an original land registration proceedings Gnot only against the person who has #een defeated in a registration case #ut also against anyone ad$ersely occupying the land or any portion thereof during the proceedings up to the issuance of the decree"G 0 It cannot howe$er, #e issued in a petition for reconstitution of an allegedly lost or destroyed certifcate of title" Reconstitution does not confrm or ad5udicate ownership o$er the property co$ered #y the reconstituted title as in original land registration proceedings where, in the latter, a writ of possession may #e issued to place the applicant0 owner in possession" 0 % person who see.s a reconstitution of a certifcate of title o$er a property he does not actually possess cannot, #y a mere motion of the issuance of a writ of possession, which is summary in nature, depri$e the actual occupants of possession thereof" !ossession and@or ownership of the property should #e threshed out in a separate proceeding" 0 4ernaezes misled the court #yF a" Not specifying, contrary to the re/uirements of &ec" )' of Rep" %ct No" 'B, the names and addresses of the actual occupants or persons in possession of the property and, instead of the real ad5oining owners, gi$ing the names of fctitious persons who naturally could not #e located and hence N7 notice was cause to #e sent to the herein mo$ants0owners who were completely ignorant of the entire proceedings" #" &urreptitiously hiding from the 4on" Court the fact that these same parcels of land were formerly the su#5ect of said petitionerAs attempt to include them in the estate of >leuterio 4ernaez under &pec" !roc" No" 'HHB, C8I Neg" 7cc", #ut which lots were found out #y the court to #e properties of the mo$ants herein and said special proceedings was dismissedD that petitioners attempted, for the second time, to claim ownership and ta.e possession o$er these same lots #y trying to include them in the alleged estate of >leuterio 4ernaez under a second &pec" !roceedings num#ered ')'0 21?(, C8I, Neg" 7cc", #ut which special proceedings was also dismissed #y the court after it was found out that the lots alleged to compose the estate of >leuterio 4ernaez were owned #y and titled in the names of other persons, more particularly 9ots Nos" )H)B Ka#an.alan Cad", 'B+2 and ?)? Ilog Cadastre which are owned #y and titled in the names of the mo$ants herein 0 6oreo$er, petitioners were possessors under a claim of ownership" %ctual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputa#le presumption of ownership" The true owner must resort to 5udicial process for the reco$ery of the property (%rticle 1HH, New Ci$il Code), not summarily through a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession" 0 Respondetns claim that petitioners and #oundary owners are #ound #ecause they ha$e #een notifed" -ut e3amination of the recor re$eal that they ha$e not #een notifed and that notice #y pu#lication is not suCcient as regards actual possessors of the property" %s held in the case of %la#ang e$elopent $ Palenzuela, in cases of reconstitution of titles, actual owners and possessors of land in$ol$ed must #e duly ser$ed with actual and personal notice of the petition" 0 The Court stresses once more that lands already co$ered #y the duly issued e3isting Torrens titles (which #ecome incontro$erti#le upon the e3piration of one year from their issuance under &ection H+ of the 9and Registration %ct) cannot #e the su#5ect of petitions for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles fled #y third parties without frstsecuring #y fnal 5udgment the cancellation of such e3isting titles" " " The courts simply ha$e no )urisdiction o$er petitions #y such third parties for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles o$er lands that are already covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly registered owners" 0 !etition is granted" Irit of possession is declared Null and Poid" Case was remenaded to TC for hearing of the motion for cancellation of reconstituted titles" ??. ANGAT VS. REPU6LIC, GR NO. 1757JJ, A0 JUNE ?009 8%CT&F 0 &ometime in 8e#ruary )***, 8ederico and his sister >nri/ueta #oth surnamed %ngat instituted a petition for reconstitution of titles" 0 They presented their duplicate copy of TCT" 0 Reason for the petition is that the old capitol #uilding where the Register of eeds holds oCce was #urned to the ground therefore the 7riginal copy of their TCT has #een #urned" 0 Register of eeds also issed a certifcation that they do not ha$e records anymore of the 7riginal TCT as it was #urned in the fre" 0 8ederico and >nri/ueta complied with all the notice re/uirements" 0 7&= entered its appearance and appointed !rosecutor Naic" 0 In <uly '((( Ternate e$elopment Corporation Ned a 6otion for lea$e to inter$ene and a complaint0in0inter$ention" They contend that a portion of the property #eing claied is co$ered #y their TCT" 0 RTC denied motion to inter$ene stating that this amounts to a collateral attac. #ecause the case is one of reconstitution" It stated that a separate ci$il action should #e nstituted #y TC to assail the $alidity of or annulment of the certifcate of title" 0 RTCF %fter trial on the merits granted the reconstitution of the title" 0 Repu#lic appealed stating that RTC ne$er ac/uired 5urisdiction o$er the reconstitution proceedings on the following groudsF a" no showing that the owners of the ad5acent properties were duly notifed according to &ections )' and )H of Repu#lic %ct No" 'BD and #" failure of 8ederico and >nri/uita to pro$e their $alid interest in the su#5ect property co$ered #y TCT No" T01H**" The appeal was doc.eted as C%0="R" CP No" ?'?1(" 0 C%F re$ersed the decision and sustained the arguments gi$en #y the 7&=" o Court of %ppeals sustained the arguments raised #y the 7&=, and held that the RTC did not ac/uire 5urisdiction o$er the !etition for Reconstitution #ecause the notices of the )( <une )*** hearing sent to the owners of the ad5oining properties $ia registered mail were returned without ha$ing #een ser$ed on them" o The names of the owners of the ad5oining properties were ta.en from the sur$ey plan made in )*H(, and it was not surprising that #y the time the notices were sent in )***, B* years later, these persons could no longer #e located" o If it were true that 8ederico regularly $isited the su#5ect property, he would .now the present owners of the ad5oining properties and accordingly sent notices to them" o The Court of %ppeals also found that 8ederico and >nri/uita failed to pro$e that at the time the original copy of TCT No" T01H** was lost, they were the only lawful owners of the su#5ect property" I&&:>F Ihether or not the sending of notices to the ad5oining owners was indispensi#le" 4>9F 0 !etitioners cite !uzon and holds that notice to ad5oining property owners is not necessary where the #asis for reconstitution is the ownerEs duplicate, following &ection )(, in relation to &ection *, of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B" %ssuming arguendo that such notice is mandatory, petitioners contend that they were a#le to su#stantially comply with the same, only that the notices they sent to the ad5oining property owners were returned unser$ed" 0 7&= contends that the RTC gra$ely erred when it assumed 5urisdiction o$er the !etition for Reconstitution despite failure #y 8ederico and >nri/uita to comply with the notice re/uirements under &ection )H of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B" It should #e recalled that notices to the ad5oining property owners were returned unser$ed for $arious reasons" The 7&= is adamant in its stance that nothing #ut strict compliance with the re/uirements of the law will do, and failure to do the same pre$ents the RTC from ac/uiring 5urisdiction o$er the !etition for Reconstitution and $oids the whole reconstitution proceedings" 0 the 7&= maintains that 8ederico and >nri/uita were not a#le to show that they were the only owners of the su#5ect property at the time of the loss of TCT No" T01H**" 8inally, the 7&= asserts that the !etition at #ar deser$es outright dismissal considering that the appealed ecision of the Court of %ppeals had already #ecome fnal and e3ecutory" 0 &CF !etition without merit 0 8irst, the C% decision alrwady attained fnality for their failure to fle a tiely 6R or appeal to &C" 0 To ac/uire 5urisdiction R% 'B &ec ' and H lays down the re/uisites" &ec ' or 7CTs and &ec" H for TCTs 0 &ec" )( and &ec" * lays down the pu#lication, posting and notice re/uireents" 0 In ,u'on, we e3plained that when the reconstitution is #ased on an e3tant ownerEs duplicate TCT, the main concern is the authenticity and genuineness of the certifcate, which could #est #e determined or contested #y the go$ernment agencies or oCces concerned" The ad5oining owners or actual occupants of the property co$ered #y the TCT are hardly in a position to determine the genuineness of the certifcateD hence, their participation in the reconstitution proceedings is not indispensa#le and notice to them is not 5urisdictional" 0 Ie fnd that 8ederico and >nri/uita were not a#le to pro$e that at the time the title was lost, he and his sister were the only lawful owners of the su#5ect property" 0 They, howe$er, failed to esta#lish the chain of transfers of the su#5ect property from 6ariano to their father, =regorioD and fnally to them" 0 They claim that they ha$e #een in possession #ut upon e3amination there were no impor$ements or permanent structures found" 0 Ie also o#ser$e that 8ederico and >nri/uita failed to pro$ide any e3planation why it too. them 1( years from the #urning of the 7Cce of the Register of eeds of Ca$ite on ? <une )*2*, #efore instituting the reconstitution proceedings" 0 The failure of 8ederico and >nri/uita to immediately see. the reconstitution of TCT No" T01H**, and their procrastination for four decades #efore actually fling their !etition, had allowed laches to attach" 0 9aches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasona#le time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has a#andoned or declined to assert it" H1 0 &C not persuaded #y the pieces of e$idence su#mitted" 0 &CF should a petition for reconstitution #e denied for lac. of suCcient #asis, the petitioner is not entirely left without a remedy" 4e may still fle an application for confrmation of his title under the pro$isions of the 9and Registration %ct, if he is, in fact, the lawful owner 0 !etition enied" C% decision denying the reconstitution is aCrmed" ?A. PANGANI6AN VS. DA4RIT, GR NO. 151?A5,?J JUL4 ?005 8%CT&F 0 7CT ?+B1 co$ers H lots, )1HB, )11) and )1+2 0 7CT ?+B1 was in the names of <uan and Ines 0 !etitioners contend that they are the lawful owners of lots )1HB" They ac.nowledge that lot )1+2 and )11) ha$e #een sold to =alo &a#anal and !a#l ag#ay, respecti$ely" 0 7wnerEs duplicate of 7CT ?+B1 was lost #ut >rlinda !acurs, one of the heirs was successful in o#taining a new uplicate 7CT" 0 % certain Cristo#al &alcedo asserted ownership o$er lot )1HB and sold it to respondent" 0 Respondent upon learning that what she #ought was resgitered land, and #eing una#le to annotate the deed of sale at the #ac. of 7CT ?+B1, fraudulently fled a petition for reconstitution of title stating that the tite of >rlinda had #een lost in the fre" 0 Ihile the petition named >rlinda, she was not sent notices" 0 The petition was grated and a duplicate title was issued to respondent" This title howe$er contained an entry of ad$erse claim #y >rlinda" 0 Respondent fled a third0party complaint against the heirs of &alcedo in that they should warrant that they are the true, legal and rightful owners" 0 RTCF ruled in fa$or of respondents" o It declared that ayrit (respondent) is the real owner o It declared that the 7CT in possession of erlinda is null and $oid #eing o#tained when they were no longer owners thereof o It declared that the 7CT in possession of ayrit is the $alid one o 7rdered Register of eeds to issue TCT in the name of ayrit" 0 C%F Re$ered the decision of RTC holding that it ne$er ac/uired 5urisdiction" o It held that the reconstituted certifcate is itself $oid once the e3istence of the original is un/uestiona#ly demonstrated" I&&:>F 0 Ihether the title in possession of >rlinda is $alid and whether the court ac/uired 5urisdiction gi$en that the 7CT was not lost #ut was in fact in the possession of >rlinda" 4>9F 0 The C% correctly ruled that the duplicate certifcate of title in petitionersE possession is $alid and su#sisting" This Court had already ruled in !erra !erra v. "ourt of #ppeals '+ that if a certifcate of title has not #een lost #ut is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is $oid and the court rendering the decision has not ac/uired 5urisdiction o$er the petition for issuance of a new title" '* &ince the ownerEs duplicate copy of 7CT No" ?+B1 earlier issued to >rlinda is still in e3istence, the lower court did not ac/uire 5urisdiction o$er respondentEs petition for reconstitution of title" The duplicate certifcate of title su#se/uently issued to respondent is therefore $oid and of no eKect" 0 %s to ownershipF o !er &ection 1B of the 9and Registration %ct, no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall #e ac/uired #y prescription or ad$erse possession" This rule ta.en in con5unction with the indefeasi#ility of a Torrens title leads to the conclusion that the rightful owners of the property in dispute are petitioners" o it was error on the part of the trial court to rule that respondent was the owner of the su#5ect property and for the C% to ha$e aCrmed such holding" Ie rule instead that the successors0in0interest of <uan and Ines are the legal owners of the su#5ect property, namely petitioners herein" 0 %s to possessionF o 7n this point, the Court rules in the negati$e" !etitioners are no longer entitled to reco$er possession of the property #y $irtue of the e/uita#le defense of laches" Thus, petitionersE argument that laches is not applica#le to them has no merit" o In our 5urisdiction, it is an enshrined rule that e$en a registered owner of property may #e #arred from reco$ering possession of property #y $irtue of laches o :pon ocular inspection it was esta#lished fromthe people residing near the su#5ect property, more particularly Celso Pelez, Nieto %#ecia and !a/uito Na#e, that &alcedo was the owner and the one in possession of the land until )*?+ when respondent #ecame the possessor thereof" o 6oreo$er, It was only in )**' or forty0f$e (12) years from the time &alcedo too. possession of the property that petitioners made an attempt to claim it as their own" o >lements of lachesF conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, gi$ing rise to the situation of which complaint is made for which the complaint see.s a remedyD delay in asserting the complainantEs rights, the complainant ha$ing had .nowledge or notice, of the defendantEs conduct and ha$ing #een aKorded an opportunity to institute a suitD lac. of .nowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he #ases his suitD and in5ury or pre5udice to the defendant in the e$ent relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to #e #arred" 1B 0 !etition is denied, C% decision is aCrmed" ?8. MANOTOK VS. 6ARGUE, GR NO. 19?AA5, 1J DEC ?00J 8%CT&F 0 In <une )), )*++ fre gutted portions of the Quezon City hall which aKected the oCce of the Register of deeds" 0 Respondents -ar/ueEs fled a petition with 9R% for reconstitution of their TCT" 0 In support of their petition the -ar/ueEs su#mitted copies of the alleged ownerEs duplicate of their title, real0estate ta3 receipts, ta3 declarations and plan co$ering the property" 0 9earning of the petition, &e$erino 6anoto. IP, fled their oppositions thereto" They claimed that the land #eing claimed #y -ar/ue is co$ered #y their reconstituted title" They allege that the -ur/ue title was spurious" 0 In <une )**?, %tty" -en5amin -ustos , as reconstituting oCcer of 9R%, denied the petition for reconstitution of -ar/ue" 4e li.ewise denined the motion for reconsideration" 0 9R% re$ersed the decision of -ustos 0 It ruled that the reconstituting oCcer should not ha$e re/uired the su#mission of documents other than the ownerEs duplicate certifcate of title as #asis for denying the petition and should ha$e confned himself to the ownerEs duplicate certifcate of title" The 9R% further found anomalies in the 6anoto.sE title" 0 Notwithstanding its conclusion that the 6anoto. title was fraudulently reconstituted, the 9R% noted that only the Regional Trial Court (RTC) could cancel the 6anoto. title as a Torrens title" 0 -oth parties appeled to the C%" 0 C%F enied -ar/ueEs petition and aCrmed 9R% decision #ut upon motion for reconsideration granted the petition" o R was directed to cancel TCT of pri$ate repsondents and the 9R% is directed to reconstitute petitionerEs $alid, genuine and e3isting 0 In '((2, The &C 8irst i$ision rendered decision aCrming the two decisions #y the C%" 0 6anoto.Es fled for 6otion for Reconsideration #ut was denied" 0 They fled a motion for lea$e to fle a second motion for reconsideration which was li.ewise denied" 0 <udgment was entered into the #oo. of 5udgments in 6ay '((B" 0 -ar/ues fled for writ of possession or e3ecution" 6anoto.Es re/uested that the case #e referred to &C en #anc a motion for oral arguments" 0 In '((B 6anahanEs inter$ened claiming ownership of the property" They claim that their predecessor0in0interest, Picente 6anahan was issued 0 &C as.ed 7&= to fle its comment 0 Case was schedule for oral arguments" I&&:>&F 0 Ihether a case where an entry of 5udgment has already #een made #e su#5ect to hearing en #anc" 0 Ihether the C% has the power to direct annulment of 6anoto. title through the petitions raised #efore it #y 6anoto and -ar/ue" 4>9F 0 %s to the procedural concernsF o ;es, this was a procedural unorthodo3 #ut this is done on a pro hac $ice #asis" o It has #een argued that the '((2 ecision of the 8irst i$ision is inconsistent with precedents of the Court, and lea$ing that decision alone without the imprimatur of the Court en banc would lead to undue confusion within the #ar and #ench, with lawyers, academics and 5udges /ui##ling o$er whether the earlier ruling of the i$ision constitutes the current standard with respect to administrati$e reconstitution of titles" o The militating concern for the Court en banc in accepting these cases is not so much the particular fate of the parties, #ut the sta#ility of the Torrens system of registration #y ensuring clarity of 5urisprudence on the feld" 0 %s to power of C% to annul titleF o It cannot o &ection 1+ of !residential ecree No" )2'*, also .nown as the !roperty Registration ecree, pro$ides that GLaM certifcate of title shall not #e su#5ect to collateral attac. LWandM cannot #e altered, modifed, or cancelled e3cept in a direct proceeding in accordance with law"G o Clearly, the cancellation of the 6anoto. title cannot arise incidentally from the administrati$e proceeding for reconstitution of the -ar/ue title e$en if the e$idence from that proceeding re$ealed the 6anoto. title as fa.e" Nor could it ha$e emerged incidentally in the appellate re$iew of the 9R%Es administrati$e proceeding" o The RTC has Ge3clusi$e original 5urisdictionG o$er actions see.ing the cancellation of title to real property is so cardinal in our remedial law that it is reNected in hundreds if not thousands of e3amples in 5urisprudence" o 9R% has no power to cancel title thus C% in its appellate 5urisdiction may not cancel titles" 0 %s to administrati$e reconstitution of -ar/ueEs titleF o :nder Rep" %ct No" 'B as amended #y Rep" %ct No" B?H', administrati$e reconstitution of titles is permitted where the certifcates of titles ha$e #een lost due to GNood, fre and other force ma5eure"G o These pro$isions indu#ita#ly esta#lish that the administrati$e reconstitution of Torrens titles is intended for non0contro$ersial cases, or especially where the su#5ect property is not co$ered #y an e3isting title in fa$or of a person other than the applicant o If a petition for administrati$e reconstitution is fled with the 9R%, and it appears from the oCcial records that the su#5ect property is already co$ered #y an e3isting Torrens title in the name of another person, there is nothing further the 9R% can do #ut to dismiss the petition" o The only remedy is an action #efore the RTC for the cancellation of the e3isting title, whether #y the competing claimant or #y the 7&= on #ehalf of the Repu#lic" 0 %s to 6anoto.Es ownershipF o In the course of fully ree$aluating these cases, the Court could not turn a #lind eye on the e$idence and points raised against the 6anoto. title" The apparent Naws in the 6anoto.sE claim are considera#le and distur#ing enough" The Court, as the ultimate citadel of 5ustice and legitimacy, is a guardian of the integrity of the land registration system of the !hilippines o The conser$ati$e approach would #e to still aCrm the continuing $alidity of the 6anoto. title until the proper case for its cancellation is fled with the regional trial court" o Case remanded to C% for reception of e$idence" o The primary focus for the Court of %ppeals, as an agent of this Court, in recei$ing and e$aluating e$idence should #e whether the 6anoto.s can trace their claim of title to a $alid alienation #y the =o$ernment of 9ot No" +'H of the !iedad >state, which was a 8riar 9and" o 7&= directed to assist C% in the procurement of all rele$ant records from the 96- and >NR, and to su#mit the same to the C%" ?5. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALA6ON VS. RTC, GR NO. JJ9?A, 5 FE6 1990 8%CT&F 0 In 6arch )?, )*++ a deed of a#solute sale in fa$or of <ose 6" Castillo co$ering a land owned #y &alome Castillo was presented to the Register of eeds" 0 The registration of the deed cannot #e gi$en due course #ecause the original of said certifcate is missing" 0 The R fled for rconstitution of title on its own initiati$e" 0 Castillo complied with the 5urisdictional re/uirements" 0 Respondent <udge of the Regional Trial Court in 6ala#on dismissed the petition for lac. of 5urisdiction #ecause the notice of the petition was not pu#lished in the 7Ccial =azette Gat least thirty (H() days prior to the date of hearingG (&ec" *, R"%" No" 'B) which had #een set on %ugust )?, )*++" The 6ay 'H and 6ay H( issues of the 7Ccial =azette were actually released for circulation on 7cto#er H, )*++, or forty0 se$en (1?) days after the scheduled hearing of the petition" 0 !etitioner fled a petition for Certiorari with the &C I&&:>F Ihether or not the petitioner complied with the 5urisdictional re/uirementS Ihether or not the Register of eeds institute a petition for reconstitution of title motu proprio" 4>9F 0 No, " The purpose of the pu#lication of the notice of the petition for reconstitution in the 7Ccial =azette is to apprise the whole world that such a petition has #een Nied and that whoe$er is minded to oppose it for good cause may do so within thirty (H() days #efore the date set #y the court for hearing the petition 0 It is the pu#lication of such notice that #rings in the whole world as a party in the case and $ests the court with 5urisdiction to hear and decide it" 0 Ihere there is a defect in the pu#lication of the petition, such defect depri$es the court of 5urisdiction (!o $s" Repu#lic, 1( &CR% H?)" %nd when the court a 3uo lac.s 5urisdiction to ta.e cognizance of a case, it lac.s authority o$er the whole case and all its aspects 0 %part from the defecti$e pu#lication of the petition, another reason for its dismissal is that the Register of eeds for 6ala#on is not the proper party to fle the petition for reconstitution" &ection B of Repu#lic %ct No" 'B, which allowed the Register of eeds to motu proprio reconstitute a lost or destroyed certifcate of title from its corresponding ownerAs duplicate certifcate, was e3pressly repealed or declared to #e Ginoperati$eG #y &ection B of Repu#lic %ct B?H', appro$ed on <uly )?, )*+*" % petition for reconstitution may now #e fled only #y Gthe registered owner his assigns, or any person who has an interest in the propertyG (&ection )', Repu#lic %ct No" 'B)" In other respects, the special procedure pro$ided in Repu#lic %ct No" 'B remains unchanged and therefore still applies (VuQiga $s" Picencio, )2H &CR% ?'()" 0 !etition is denied" >TTR% C%&>F RAGUA 1 CA 8%CT&F 0 The land in$ol$ed in this estate is 1H* hectares and includes the followingF F the Quezon City 4all, !hilippine &cience 4igh &chool, Quezon 6emorial Circle, Pisayas %$enue, Ninoy %/uino !ar.s and Iildlife, portions of :! Pillage and >ast Triangle, the entire !ro5ect B and Pasha Pillage, Peterans 6emorial 4ospital and golf course, epartment of %griculture, epartment of >n$ironment and Natural Resources, &ugar Regulatory %dministration, !hilippine To#acco %dministration, 9and Registration %uthority, !hilcoa -uilding, -ureau of Telecommunications, %gricultural Training Institute -uilding, !agasa Pillage, &an 8rancisco &chool, Quezon City 4ospital, portions of !ro5ect ?, 6indanao %$enue su#di$ision, part of -ago -antay resettlement pro5ect, &6 City North > 0 &%, part of !hil0%m 9ife 4omes compound and four0ffths of North Triangle" 0 >ulalio Ragua, together with her co0 owners fled for reconstitution of title #efore C8Iattached was a phtostatic copu of 7CT BH'" 0 <6 Tuason and Co" fled an opposition that 7CT BH' is fctitious and that the land was co$ered #y TCT )H2B in the name of !44C" TCT )H2B came from 7CT ?H2 which has #een held #eyond 5udicial re$iew in the case of ;a5imo -" vs" ;ariano !evere Tuason" 0 N4% li.ewise fled opposition on the same ground that !44C has title to it" 0 7n <anuary '*, )*B2, during the pendency of the petition, &ulpicio %li3 applied for, and on the same date, o#tained from the Register of eeds of Quezon City, an administrati$e reconstitution of 7CT No" BH'" 0 7n 8e#ruary )(, )*B2, Tuason fled with the Court of 8irst Instance of Quezon City, -ranch )+ a complaint for annulment of 7CT No" BH'" 0 " Tuason a$erred that on <anuary '*, )*B2, Ragua and@or %li3 .nowingly caused to #e reconstituted administrati$ely in the Register of eeds of Quezon City, a fa.e 7CT No" BH' co$ering 1,H**,H'' s/uare meters of land situated in iliman, Quezon City" Tuason maintained that 7CT No" BH' in the name of Ragua was a fa.e title since the records of the Registry of eeds of !asig, Rizal showed that 7CT No" BH' was issued in the name of ominga <" 7ripiano, for a parcel of land co$ering *? hectares situated in Taytay, Rizal" 0 9ater on se$eral parties opposed the reconstitutionF Tuasons, the National 4ousing %uthority (formerly !44C), epartment of National efense, epartment of %griculture and Natural Resources, !ar.s and Iildlife, !hilippine %merican 9ife Insurance Company, et" al", among other parties, which claimed to ha$e purchased portions of the iliman >state from the Tuasons" 0 C8I rendered decision ad5udicating the land in fa$or of Ragua" 0 C%F o upon appeal C% held that the trial court had no 5urisdiction o$er the petition for reconstitution for failure to comply with 5urisdictional re/uirements of pu#lication and posting of notices" o 8urthermore, it has #een held in se$eral cases that 7CT ?H2 of the TuasonEs are $alid and that the trial court may not proceed with the reconstitution unless 7CT ?H is frst annulled" I&&:>F 0 whether the trial court ac/uired 5urisdiction o$er the proceedings for reconstitution of title due to non0 compliance with the 5urisdictional re/uirements prescri#ed for reconstitution of tittles, and 0 whether the e$idence of the sources of the title to #e reconstituted was suCcient #asis therefor" 4>9F 0 %s to <urisdictionF o !etitioners did not comply with the re/uireents set in &ection )' (d), (e) and (g), namely, the petition did not state ()) the nature and description of the #uildings or impro$ements, if any, which do not #elong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such #uildings or impro$ements, (') the names and addresses of the occupants of the ad5oining property and of all persons who may ha$e any interest in the property and (H) that no deeds or other instrument aKecting the property ha$e #een presented for registration o Ie ha$e ruled that the failure to comply with the re/uirements of pu#lication and posting of notices prescri#ed in Repu#lic %ct No" 'B, &ections )' and )H is fatal to the 5urisdiction of the court" 'H 4ence, non0compliance with the 5urisdictional re/uirements renders its decision appro$ing the reconstitution of 7CT No" BH' and all proceedings therein utterly null and $oid" 0 %s to e$idenceF o The Court of %ppeals held that the documents su#mitted were du#ious in character and could not #e proper sources of reconstitution of 7CT No" BH'" This is a factual fnding that we cannot re$iew in this re$iew oncertiorari. EirstF Regarding !lan II01+)B and microflm of !lan II0 1+)B, the Court of %ppeals found that there were conNicting reports regarding their authenticity as there was showing of splicing of the microflm, which tainted its genuineness" Conse/uently, !lan II01+)B can not #e considered as genuine e$idence for reconstitution" !econdF the application for registration of title of >ulalio Ragua, duly certifed #y Commissioner No#le5as did not indicate that the application was appro$ed" 4ence, it can not constitute proof of the title supposedly issued su#se/uently" Neither was there proof that such application was pu#lished in the $%cial &a'ette as re/uired #y law" ThirdF the photographic copy of 7CT No" BH' was not authenticated #y the Register of eeds" EourthF the copy of ecree No" B*?(, can not #e considered as competent e$idence #ecause 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 co$ered" EifthF the ta3 declarations co$ering the property do not pro$e ownership o$er the land o Conse/uently, we agree with the Court of %ppeals that none of the source documents presented was relia#le" Ie are con$inced that the factual fndings of the Court of %ppeals are supported #y suCcient e$idence and, thus, #inding on this Court" 0 6oreo$er, petitioners fled the petition for reconstitution of 7CT BH' nineteen ()*) years after the title was allegedly lost or destroyed" Ie thus consider petitioners guilty of laches" '? 9aches is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasona#le time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has a#andoned or declined to assert it" 0 The reconstitution of a title is simply the reissuance of a new duplicate certifcate of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition" H( G Conse/uently, as the purported sources of the title to #e reconstituted were du#ious, the trial court erred in ma.ing use of them for the reconstitution of the title in the name of >ulalio Ragua 0 !etition denied" C% decision aCrmed" Reconstitution of Ragua 7CT is in$alid"