JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION

Reconstitution of a certificate of title literally and within the meaning of

Republic Act No. 26 denotes restoration of the instrument which is supposed
to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. It is limited
to the reconstitution of the certificate as it stood at the time of its loss or
destruction and should not be stretched to include later changes which alter
or affect the title of the registered owner. (Bachoco vs. Esperancillo, 1!
"hil. ## ((1$!$%
It has been held that the reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes
restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or
destroyed in its original form and condition. The purpose of the
reconstitution of title or any document is to have the same reproduced, after
proper proceedings, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction
occurred. If the court goes beyond such purpose, it acts without or in
ecess of !urisdiction.
"

The reconstitution of a title is simply the re#issuance of a lost duplicate
certificate of title in its original form and condition. It does not determine or
resolve the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. A
reconstituted title, li$e the original certificate of title, by itself does not vest
ownership of the land or estate covered thereby. (&rancisco '. Alon(o,
e).al. vs. Ce*+ Co+n)r, Cl+*, Inc. -R No. 1./01, Jan+ar, .1, 22%
The indispensability of notice to actual possessors of the sub!ect property
was underscored in %anila Railroad &o. vs. 'on. %oya
2
. In that case, the
&ourt held that failure to serve notice on a possessor of the property
involved renders the order of reconstitution null and void as said possessor is
deprived of his day in court. ('an+el Silves)re Bernar3o, e).al. vs. Co+r)
o4 Appeals, e).al., -.R. No. 11101! an3 Ani)a S. Li5, e).al. vs. Co+r) o4
Appeals, e).al. -.R. No. 112/01, J+ne /, 2% In these cases, the
occupants or persons in possession of the property were not notified nor
their names and addresses appear on the petition for reconstitution, which is
not in compliance with the re(uirement of )ection "2 of Republic Act No.
26.
"
6eirs o4 "e3ro "ino)e vs. D+la,, 1/0 SCRA 12, 1$72
2
L710$1., J+ne 22, 1$1!, 1# SCRA .!/.
Un3er sec)ion 1. o4 Rep+*lic Ac) No. 21, no)ice *, p+*lica)ion is no)
s+44icien) *+) s+ch no)ice 5+s) *e ac)+all, sen) or 3elivere3 )o par)ies *,
)he pe)i)ion 4or recons)i)+)ion.
Reconstitution of title does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered
by the lost or destroyed title. *ossession of a lost certificate of title is not
necessarily e(uivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. The certificate
of title, by itself, does not vest ownership+ it is merely an evidence of title
over a particular property. ,cited in ('an+el Silves)re Bernar3o, e).al. vs.
Co+r) o4 Appeals, e).al., -.R. No. 11101! an3 Ani)a S. Li5, e).al. vs.
Co+r) o4 Appeals, e).al. -.R. No. 112/01, J+ne /, 2%
-e have ruled that the failure to comply with the re(uirements of
publication and posting of notices prescribed in Republic Act No. 26,
)ections "2 and ". is fatal to the !urisdiction of the court. 'ence, non#
compliance with the !urisdictional re(uirements renders its decision
approving the reconstitution of /&T No. 6.2 and all proceedings therein
utterly null and void. (6eirs o4 E+la3io Ra8+a, e).al. vs. Co+r) o4 Appeals,
e).al. -.R. Nos. //!217229 'arino Re8ala3o, e).al. vs. :+e(on Ci),, e).al.
-.R. Nos. /$.11710, Jan+ar, .1, 2%
The publication of the petition in two successive issues of the /fficial
0a1ette, the service of the notice of hearing to the ad!oining owners and
actual occupants of the land, as well as the posting of the notices in the main
entrances of the provincial and municipal buildings where the property lies
at least .2 days prior to the date of the hearing, as prescribed by )ection ".
of the law are mandatory and !urisdictional re(uisites. (Tahanan Dev;).
Corp. vs. Co+r) o4 Appeals, 11/ SCRA 20. (1$/2%9 Dir. o4 Lan3s vs.
Co+r) o4 Appeals, 12 SCRA .0 (1$/1%9 'e)ropoli)an <a)er=or>s an3
Se=era8e S,s)e5 vs. Sison, 12# SCRA .$# (1$/.%
3ailure or omission to notify the owner, possessor or occupant of an ad!acent
property, as well as failure to post copies of the Notice of 'earing at the
main entrance of the municipal ,or city4 building where the land is situated,
and at the *rovincial 5uilding, are fatal to the ac(uisition and eercise of
!urisdiction by the trial court.
.
In petitions for reconstitution of titles, actual and possessors of the lands
involved must be duly served with actual and personal notice of the petition.
.
Tahanan Develop5en) Corp. vs. Co+r) o4 Appeals, 11/ SCRA 20., .$ (1$/2%
Notice by publication of the petition in the /fficial 0a1ette is not sufficient
as regards actual possessors and owners of the property involved. (Serra
Serra vs. Co+r) o4 Appeals, 1$! SCRA #/2, #$2 (1$$1% ci)in8 Ala*an8
Develop5en) vs. ?alen(+ela, -.R. No. !#$#, A+8+s) ., 1$/2, 111
SCRA 200%
It is not enough that there is publication in the /fficial 0a1ette . In
addition, Republic Act No. 26 decrees that such notice be posted on the main
entrance of the corresponding provincial capitol and municipal building as
well as served actually upon the owners of the ad!acent lands. 3ailure to
comply with such re(uisites will nullify the decree of reconstitution.
6
Needless to state, a wrongly reconstituted certificate of title secured through
fraud and misrepresentation, cannot be the source of legitimate rights and
benefits unless of course the transferee of the title is in good faith. (Jose vs.
Co+r) o4 Appeals, 1$2 SCRA 0.!, 0#1 (1$$%9 Rep+*lic vs. Co+r) o4
Appeals, $# SCRA /027/0. (1$0$%
A void !udgment may be assailed or impugned at any time either directly or
collaterally by means of a petition filed in the same case or by a separate
action or by resisting such !udgment in any action or proceeding wherein it
is invo$ed. (An8 La5 vs. Rosillosa, e).al. /1 "hil. ##/ (1$!%
To sustain the validity of the reconstituted titled secured through fraud and
misrepresentation would be to allow Republic Act No. 26 to be utili1ed as an
instrument for land grabbing. (see Rep+*lic vs. Co+r) o4 Appeals, Oca5po
an3 An8lo, L7.1..7#, 'a, .1, 1$0/, /. SCRA #!., #/% or to sanction
fraudulent machinations for depriving a registered owner of his land to
undermine the stability and security of Torrens Titles and to impair the
Torrens system of registration. (Rep+*lic vs. Co+r) o4 Appeals, s+pra ci)e3
in Jose vs. Co+r) o4 Appeals, 1$2 SCRA 0.!, 0#170#2%
6
Rep+*lic vs. In)er5e3ia)e Appella)e Co+r), 1!0 SCRA 12 (1$//%