You are on page 1of 60

K.

PETITIONS AND MOTIONS AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION


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#e rescinded and re$o.ed"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 ,.
&regorio 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

F#+)&$ !o +,!$.o'$ #, o..o'+!+o, +' ,o!
$,o&"(, !($$ m&'! %$ '&%'!#,!+#)
/om.)+#,/$ 7+!( !($ $=!'

pri$ate respondent has not suCciently


shown her right to a reconstitution"

Neither %ct No" H1H( nor !roclamation No"


)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"