STATEMENT OF FACTS

Chuckie M. Cocoa,herein Petitioner and her husband, Charles M. Cocoa, are the registered owners of
a certain parcel of land located in Baguio City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
28824 issued by the Register of Deeds of Baguio City, with corresponding Tax Declaration with
Property Index No. 203-07-009-13-L038.

While the Petitioner was abroad, she authorized Ma. Dina Kumita, a close friend, to sell said parcel of
land. Upon arriving in the Philippines, however, Ma. Kumita discovered that the owner’s duplicate
copy of TCT No. T-28824 was missing.

Despite the diligent efforts exerted by both Petitioner and Ma. Kumita to search and locate the said
certificate of title, their efforts proved futile. Petitioner thus considered the certificate of title lost and
beyond recovery.

Petitioner, through Ms. Kumita, notified the Register of Deeds of the loss and thus filed this present
petition before this Honorable Court for the Issuance of a New Owner’s Duplicate Copy of said
certificate of title.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

After the Register of Deeds submitted its answer to our petition on [date when answer was filed], the
issues of the case were thus joined, to wit:

1. Are the alleged discrepancies in the subject certificate of title fatal to the Petitioner’s cause?
2. Is Petitioner’s failure to notify the Office of the Solicitor General and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources a jurisdictional defect so as to warrant the dismissal of the
petition?

DISCUSSION

On discrepancies in the certificate of title

The Register of Deeds argues that the present petition should fail on the ground that Petitioner is not
the registered owner of the subject parcel of land, the questioned certificate of title bearing a name
other than that of the Petitioner and her husband’s:

4. Based on records, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-28824 xxx is registered in accordance with the
provisions of the Land Registration Act in the name of Illuminada M Cacao, Filipino, of legal age,
married to Segundo P. Cacao, an American citizen, and a resident of Malasiqui, Pangasinan,
Philippines.
5. Nowhere in the TCT No. T-28824 does it mention of a name Chuckie M. Cocoa, herein petitioner,
who is requesting for the issuance of New Owner’s Duplicate Copy.

While Petitioner acknowledges that there exists discrepancies in the certificate of title and her
personal circumstances as laid down in her petition, the said entries in the certificate of title are
merely clerical errors which do not detract from the fact that Petitioner and her husband are the
registered owners of the parcel of land.

That the questioned entries are typographical errors cannot be doubted:

1. The names “Illuminada” and “Segundo” are the nicknames of Petitioner and her husband,
respectively. While Petitioner regrets her having erroneously placed their nicknames in the certificate
of title, the same should not operate to their prejudice, it being made in good faith and without
malice.
In fact, the aforesaid names appeared multiple times in the exhibits submitted by the Petitioner. For
instance, the Apostille executed by her bore the name “Illuminda” as having appeared before the
Secretary of State of the State of California (Annex B). In a like manner, the Special Power of Attorney
executed by Petitioner in favor of Ms. Kumita (Annex A), bears the name “Segundo”:

KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, CHUCKIE M. COCOA, of legal age, Filipino, married to SEGUNDO COCOA and with residence at 420
Martyr Way, Mariposa, California 9035, USA, do hereby NAME AND CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT Ma.
Dina Kumita and/or Olivia Rodriguez xxx to be my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, for me and in my
name, place and stead, to do the following acts: xxx

Furthermore, Olivia D. Rodriguez, one of Petitioner’s long-time friend and appointed attorney-in-fact,
narrates how the Petitioner and her husband have been known by the names of “Illuminada” and
“Segundo” for years:

Q: Do the names Illuminada and Segundo Cocoa sound familiar to you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Are these people personally known to you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Can you describe your relationship with these people?

A: Sina ate Chuckie at kuya Charles po iyan.

Q: By “ate Chuckie” do you mean the petitioner, Chuckie Cocoa?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How about “Charles”?

A: ‘Yung asawa po.

Q: Which between the two are their real names?

A: Their real names are Chuckie and Charles, sir. Illuminada and Segundo is merely a palayaw.

Q: How did you come to know Chuckie and Charles as Illuminada and Segundo?
A: I have been their long-time friend, sir. Dati pa lang po ay ‘yun na ang tawag sa kanila, kahit mga
iba naming kaibigan.

Q: For how long have you known the couple?

A: I am their childhood friend, sir.

Q: And you have known each other for about how many years?
A: Probably fifteen years.

Q: Do you know how the spouses got the nickname Illuminada and Segundo?
A: I am not aware, sir. All I know is that they were called by their parents by those names. The rest of
us just adopted it.

2. The certificate of title bears the surname “Cocoa” and the middle initial “M.” which is the same as
that of Petitioner and her husband’s.

3. The certificate of title likewise reveals that the parcel of land covered by it is jointly owned by
spouses, which is curiously similar to Petitioner’s circumstances.

4. The Philippine address which the certificate of title sets forth is the address of Petitioner before
leaving for the United States. This is estabslished by the testimony of Ma. Kumita which is partly
reproduced as follows:
Q: Have you read the contents of TCT No. T-28824?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what is the address of the registered owners as born by the certificate of title?
A: Pangasinan, sir.

Q: Specifically in Malasiqui, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what is the present address of the petitioner?

A: She is currently living in America, sir.

Q: Then why is the address indicated in the certificate of title different?

A: That is their old address, sir, when they were still living in the Philippines.

Q: When did they leave for America?

A: About seven years ago, sir.

Q: And when did the spouses acquire the property?

A: I am not sure of the exact date, sir

Q: But did they already own the property before going abroad?
A: Yes, sir. They were living in that property before left the Philippines.

The similarities in the circumstances of Petitioner and those narrated in the certificate of title are
uncanny. The foregoing points sufficiently demonstrate that the discrepancies are merely a product of
clerical errors. A clerical error is merely an error in form and cannot operate to divest the Petitioner of
her substantive right. If the Register of Deeds is still concerned of such inconsistency, then surely the
proper remedy is for the Petitioner to take steps to correct it, and not to deny her the issuance of a
new certificate of title which she is undoubtedly entitled to, being the true owner of the parcel of
land. The proper remedy for correction of entries in land titles is provided for in Section 108 of the
Property Registration Decree:

SEC 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates - xxx A registered owner of other person having an
interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the
Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that the
registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing
on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the
certificate have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate
or any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate; or that the same or any person on the
certificate has been changed; or that the registered owner has married, or, if registered as married,
that the marriage has been terminated and no right or interests of heirs or creditors will thereby be
affected; or that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not convened
the same within three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court
may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or
cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or
grant any other relief xxx

Assuming arguendo that the Petitioner is not the registered owner of the subject parcel of land, the
same is not fatal to her cause. The Property Registration Decree explicitly provides that it is not only
the registered owner, but also any other person in interest who may execute a sworn statement of
the fact of the loss or destruction of the certificate of title and may likewise file a petition for the
issuance of a new duplicate certificate. (Sec. 109 of PD 1529)
That Petitioner is a “person in interest” cannot be doubted. She had been in possession, under a claim
of ownership, of the subject parcel of land for several years (Supra.). A possession in the concept of an
owner gives rise to the following effects in favor of the possessor:

1. It raises a disputable presumption of ownership (Art. 433, Civil Code)

2. It creates a disputable presumption that the possessor has just title and he cannot be obliged to
show it (Art. 541, Ibid.)
3. It can ripen into ownership through acquisitive prescription, subject to the additional requirements
of Article 1118 of the Civil code (Art. 540, Id.)

In this regard, “just title” refers to that which is legally sufficient to transfer ownership of the thing or
the real right to which it relates. Without just title, the Petitioner cannot have the power to transfer
the ownership of the subject parcel of land, of which she had already taken preparatory steps to sell
so much so that a Special Power of Attorney had already been executed appointing Ma. Kumita and
Rodriguez as her attorneys-in-fact.

Should the Court or the Register of Deeds remain unconvinced of the Petitioner’s position and be
suspicious that the Petitioner would take advantage of the granting of this petition to usurp the
property which the Petitioner allegedly does not own, we deem it well to remind that proceedings for
the replacement of owner’s duplicate certificates of title only involve the re-issuance of a new
certificate of title lost or destroyed in its original form. (Sps. Layor v. Fil-Estate and Development, Inc.,
425 Phil. 65, 66 (2002). See also Salud v. Court of Appeals, 303 Phil. 397 (1994)) It does not pass upon
the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Strictly speaking therefore, there is
no conclusive adjudication of rights between adversarial parties in a proceeding for the replacement
of a lost or destroyed owner’s duplicate certificate of title. (PBCOM v. Register of Deeds, GR No.
222958, March 11, 2020)

On failure to notify the Solicitor General, DENR

The Register of Deeds also faults the Petitioner for not having notified the Office of the Solicitor
General and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) of the present
proceedings, arguing it to be a jurisdictional defect:

On jurisdictional requirements, no service was made to the Office of the Solicitor General, which is the
recognized representative of government offices, including the Registry of Deeds, Baguio City. No
service was, likewise made to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources - CAR, which is
the government agency responsible as custodian of maps, technical descriptions, land surveys, of
alienable and disposable lands.

This contention is bereft of merit.

The procedure governing the issuance of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title is found in Section
109 of PD 1529. A careful scrutiny of said provision would reveal that nothing in the law requires that
the Office of the Solicitor General or the DENR be notified and heard in proceedings for the issuance
of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title. That the failure to notify the aforesaid government
agencies is not a jurisdictional defect has already been settled in the case of Republic v. Court of
Appeals (GR No. 128531, October 26, 1999):

Considering that the law does not impose such notice requirement in proceedings for the issuance of
a new owner's duplicate certificate of title, the lack of notice to the Solicitor General, as counsel for
the Registrar of Deeds, was at most only a formal and not a jurisdictional defect.

This case should be distinguished from our rulings in cadastral registration cases and original land
registration proceedings which cases require that the Solicitor General be notified of decisions and
hold as decisive, for the purpose of determining the timeliness of the appeal filed by the government,
the date of his receipt of the decisions therein and not that of the Director of Lands or of his other
representatives. The issue and the applicable laws in those cases are different.
On the granting of the petition

Having adequately disposed of the objections raised by the Register of Deeds, the Petitioner will now
demonstrate the merits of the present petition.

The procedure governing the issuance of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title is found in Section
109 of PD 1529:

SEC. 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. - In case of loss or theft of an owner's
duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his
behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft
is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person
applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn
statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other person
in interest and registered.

Upon 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 certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of
the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to
like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes
of this decree.

The foregoing provision unequivocally shows that the Court's authority in a petition for the
replacement of a lost owner's duplicate certificate of title is limited to determining: (1) whether the
procedure prescribed in Section 109 has been complied with; and (2) whether the owner's duplicate
certificate of title has, in fact, been lost/destroyed. If the requisites are satisfied, the court, after
notice and hearing, should direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate in its original form and
condition, with a memorandum of the fact that it is being issued in place of the lost duplicate
certificate. On the other hand, if the requisites are not satisfied, the court, after notice and hearing,
should dismiss the petition without prejudice to the registered owner's subsequent compliance with
the requisites prescribed by law. (PBCOM v. Register of Deeds, GR No. 222958, March 11, 2020)

In that regard, the requirements for the replacement of the lost owner’s duplicate certificate of title
may be summarized, thus:

1. The registered owner or other person in interest shall send notice of the loss or destruction of the
owner's duplicate certificate of title to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land
lies as soon as the loss or destruction is discovered;
2. The corresponding petition for the replacement of the lost or destroyed owner's duplicate
certificate shall then be filed in court and entitled in the original case in which the decree of
registration was entered;
3. The petition shall state under oath the facts and circumstances surrounding such loss or
destruction; and
4. The court may set the petition for hearing after due notice to the Register of Deeds and all other
interested parties as shown in the memorandum of encumbrances noted in the original or transfer
certificate of title on file in the office of the Register of Deeds;
5. After due notice and hearing, the court may direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate which
shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost or destroyed certificate
and shall in all respects be entitled to the same faith and credit as the original duplicate. (Heirs of Acio
v. Abon, GR No. 222916, July 24, 2019, citing Propery Registration Decree and Related Laws (Agcaoli))

The Petitioner had flawlessly complied with the provisions of Section 109. Petitioner, through Ma.
Kumita, executed a sworn statement in the form of an Affidavit of Loss narrating the events which led
to the loss and the subsequent discovery of the loss of the questioned certificate of title. (Exhibit C).
The Register of Deeds was likewise notified thereof by the recording of the Affidavit of Loss therewith
and the entry of the corresponding Memorandum of Encumbrances. (Annex D-1).
The fact of loss is likewise beyond reproach. The loss of the certificate of title was adequately
described by the aforementioned Affidavit of Loss and substantiated by the testimony of Ma. Kumita.
(Supra.). It is likewise noteworthy that the Register of Deeds, in its answer, never objected to the
issue of whether the certificate of title was, in fact, lost.

Having satisfied the requirements set forth by Section 109, the Petitioner belives that the Court is
now duty-bound to grant the petition and order the issuance of the onwer’s duplicate certificate of
title.

PRAYER

(same prayer in petition)