Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
and
VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
REPUBLIC OF THE Promulgated:
Respondent. February
13, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The instant petition for review under
Rule 45 seeks the reversal of the
The Facts
Petitioner claimed that she is the
owner in fee simple of Lot No. 3209, Pagsanjan, Laguna Cadastre, having
inherited it from her parents, Guillermo Abinsay and Leoncia Rivera. She and her predecessors-in-interest had
allegedly been in open, public, continuous, and peaceful possession of the
disputed lot since it was bought from Serafin Limuaco in 1956. On
Due to the ravages of World War II,
however, the owner’s duplicate certificate of the
After complying with the
jurisdictional requirements, petitioner was allowed to present evidence ex-parte. She testified that her parents bought a piece
of land from Limuaco and that after her parents’ death, her siblings
partitioned the land and Lot No. 3209 was allocated to her. She learned from the Land Registration
Authority (LRA) that Decree No. 412846 was issued in the cadastral case in
1930, but the records, including those in the
The RTC denied the petition for reconstitution
for insufficiency of evidence in its
The
certification issued by Acting Chief Alberto H. Lingayo of the Ordinary and
Cadastral Decree Division (Exh. “F”) and another certification of the Chief of
the Docket Division of the Land Registration Authority (Exh. “G”) speak of
Decree No. 412846 issued on
Assuming that Assessor’s Lot No. 19-pt refers to Lot No. 3209, still, the petition could not be granted because there is no showing that an original certificate of title was actually issued pursuant to Decree No. 412846. The certifications issued by the Land Registration Authority dated October 26, 1999 and September 23, 1998 and the Report of the same office dated May 5, 2000 are bereft of any allusion to the issuance of a title. The documents presented in evidence by petitioner not only failed to prove the issuance of an original certificate of title but also the name of the adjudicatee.[4]
On appeal to the CA, petitioner
argued that Assessor’s Lot No. 19-pt and Lot No. 3209 are the same; that she is
the adjudicatee of the disputed lot; and that an OCT was issued in accordance
with Decree No. 412846. For respondent
Republic of the
The July 22, 2003 Decision of the CA
affirmed the trial court’s order in toto. The CA held that petitioner failed to present
the documents enumerated in Section 2, Republic Act No. (RA) 26 entitled An
Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate
of Title Lost or Destroyed, as amended by RA 6732, or any other document
that could be a sufficient basis for reconstituting title.
Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration was denied by the CA in its
The Issues
Thus, petitioner elevated the matter
to us, interposing that:
I
The CA erred in holding that petitioner failed to present any of the documents enumerated in Sec. 2 of RA 26.
II
The CA erred in holding that the certification of the LRA that Decree No. 412846 was issued over Lot 3209 cannot qualify as a proper document for reconstituting the lost or destroyed titled because Lot 3209 is different from Lot 19-pt.
III
The CA erred in
holding that the lot sold by Serafin Limuaco to the Sps. Abinsay and Rivera is
not Lot 3209 but
IV
The CA erred in holding that statements in the Deed of Sale and Deed of Co-owners Partition that the land is not registered under Act 496 are fatal to the instant Petition.[5]
The Court’s Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
Sec. 2 of RA 26 provides:
SEC. 2. Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available in the following order:
(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;
(b) The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of the certificate of title;
(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
(d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued;
(e) A document, on file in the Registry of Deeds by which the property, the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original has been registered; and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
Petitioner asserts that under Sec.
2(f) of RA 26, other documents may be considered by the court as sufficient
bases for the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate of title. The pertinent documents she presented before
the trial court are as follows:
(1)
List of lot
descriptions from the Bureau of Lands which show that Limuaco is a claimant of
(2)
Certification of
the LRA dated October 26, 1999, stating that based on the Record of Book of
Decrees kept at the Vault Section, Docket Division of said office, the copy of Decree
No. 412846 issued on December 4, 1930 covering Lot No. 3209 of the Cadastral
Survey of Pagsanjan, Laguna under Cadastral Case No. 14, LRC Cadastral Record
No. 211 was not among the salvaged decrees on file with said office and that
the said copy is presumed lost or destroyed during World War II (Exhibit “F”);
(3)
Certification
from the LRA dated
(4)
Deed of Absolute
Sale dated December 24, 1956, showing that Limuaco sold to petitioner’s parents
a parcel of land in Anibong, Pagsanjan, Laguna which consists of 10,673 sq. m.
covered by Tax Declaration No. 156 (Exhibit “E”);
(5)
Tax Declaration
No. 5471 in the name of petitioner’s parents which canceled Tax Declaration No.
156 covering a property bounded by the lot of Timoteo Abaya on the north, a
stream on the south and west, a callejon in the east (Exhibit “J”); and
(6)
Deed of
Co-owner’s Partition dated February 5, 1968 which shows that petitioner and her
siblings divided their inheritance after the death of their parents, and that
petitioner obtained Lot No. 19-pt covered by Tax Declaration No. 1376 situated
in Anibong, Pagsanjan, Laguna consisting of 10,673 sq. m., bounded by Lot No.
15 pt. of Marcelo Aquino on the north, a stream on the south and west, and a callejon
in the east (Exhibit “D”).[6]
As held in Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[7]
when RA 26, Section 2(f)
speaks of “any other document,” the reference is to similar documents
previously enumerated in the section or documents ejusdem generis as the documents earlier referred to.
The Deed of Co-owners Partition
states that the subject of the instrument is Lot No. 19-pt. The Deed of Absolute Sale between Limuaco and
petitioner’s parents, on the other hand, states that the land was not
registered under Act No. 496. Petitioner
nevertheless insists that Lot No. 3209 is the subject of a decree of
registration according to the records of the LRA, and that between Limuaco’s
statement and the certification from the LRA, the latter must prevail.
We are not convinced. RA 26 presupposes that the property whose
title is sought to be reconstituted has already been brought under the
provisions of the Torrens System, Act No. 496.[8]
Petitioner’s evidence itself, the Deed of Sale between Limuaco and her
parents, stated that the lot was not registered under Act No. 496 and that the
parties agreed to register it under Act No. 3344. Even the Deed of Co-owner’s Partition stated
that the subject lot, Lot No. 19-pt, is not registered. The other piece of evidence, the
certifications from the LRA, merely stated that Decree No. 412846 covering Lot
No. 3209 was issued on
In Republic v. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas, this Court denied
the petition for reconstitution of title despite the existence of a decree:
We also
find insufficient the index of decree showing that Decree No. 365835 was issued
for Lot No. 1499, as a basis for reconstitution. We noticed that the name
of the applicant as well as the date of the issuance of such decree was
illegible. While Decree No. 365835 existed in the Record Book of
Cadastral Lots in the Land Registration Authority as stated in the Report
submitted by it, however, the same report did not state the number of the
original certificate of title, which is not sufficient evidence in support of
the petition for reconstitution. The deed of extrajudicial declaration of
heirs with sale executed by Aguinaldo and Restituto Tumulak Perez and
respondent on
Petitioner argues that since it is
incumbent upon the Commissioner of Land Registration to issue a certificate of
title pursuant to a court decree, it can be presumed that a certificate of title
over Lot No. 3209 was indeed issued when the cadastral court ordered it so on
What further militates against
petitioner’s arguments is the fact that the Deed of Absolute Sale, Deed of
Co-owner’s Partition, and Tax Declaration Nos. 5471 and 99-19-003-00022 mention
Lot No. 19-pt and not
Petitioner points out, however, that
both Lot No. 19-pt and Lot No. 3209 have the area of 10,673 sq. m., bounded by
a callejon and a stream, and located in Anibong, Pagsanjan, Laguna. Moreover, the Lot Description (Exhibit “O”)
and Lot Data (Exhibit “P”) show that the technical description of
Assuming that Lot Nos. 19-pt and 3209
are the same, we are still constrained to deny the reconstitution of title
mainly because there is no proof that a certificate of title was originally
issued to both lots. The Solicitor
General notes that both lots are still unregistered land of the public domain;
thus, no certificate covering such property can be issued under the instant
proceeding.
In sum, we are not persuaded that
petitioner’s pieces of evidence warrant the reconstitution of title since she
failed to prove the existence of the title in the first place. The purpose of reconstitution of title is to
have the original title reproduced in the same form it was when it was lost or
destroyed.[11] In this case, there is no title to be
re-issued. The appellate and trial
courts were correct in denying Pascua’s petition. We emphasize that courts must be cautious in
granting reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of titles. It is the duty of the trial court to
scrutinize and verify carefully all supporting documents, deeds, and
certifications. Each and every fact,
circumstance, or incident which corroborates or relates to the existence and
loss of the title should be examined.[12]
WHEREFORE, the CA’s July 22, 2003 Decision and
February 10, 2004 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 74050, affirming the October 30,
2000 Order of the Sta. Cruz, Laguna RTC, Branch 27, are AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 61-68. Penned by Associate Justice
Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A.
Salazar-Fernando and Edgardo F. Sundiam.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
No. L-68303,
[8] Dordas v. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 59, 64 (1997).
[9] G.R. No. 142284, June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 533, 546-547.
[10] Rollo, p. 17.
[11] Puzon v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., G.R. No. 139518, March 6, 2001, 353 SCRA 699, 710.
[12] Tahanan
Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, No. L-55771,