REPUBLIC
OF THE
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
- versus
- Chairperson,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
and
GERTRUDES
B. VERZOSA, VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
Respondent.
Promulgated:
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
The
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed this Petition[1]
dated
The
factual findings of the Court of Appeals are as follows:
On
January 3, 2001, Gertrudes B. Verzosa (herein petitioner-appellee) filed a
petition for reconstitution of the original copy of Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 140606 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, docketed as LRC
Case No. Q-13686 (01), which was raffled to Branch 218 of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City. In support thereof, petitioner-appellee alleged that she
and Edna Verzosa Garcia are the registered owners of a parcel of land situated
in the University District, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 140606 and that to
her has been allotted Lot 7-B thereof by virtue of a court order. However, the
original copy of their title was burned when the
On
January 15, 2001, the RTC, finding the petition to be sufficient in form and
substance, set the case for hearing on May 18, 2001 and ordered the publication
of its Order in the Official Gazette as well as its posting at the Main
Entrance of the Quezon City Hall, the Bulletin Board of the Branch and the
Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Quezon City, at least 30 days prior to the
date of hearing. It likewise required the service of copies of the said order
on the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Administrator of Land Registration
Authority, Director of Land Management Bureau, Office of the Solicitor General,
City Prosecutor of Quezon City, City Legal Officer of
On
the scheduled date of hearing on
In
the meantime, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) submitted to the RTC a
Report dated
x x x
(2)
Our records show that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 140606 covering
(3)
The plan and technical description of
x x x
On
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PRESENT PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION BECAUSE APPELLEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 26 IN RELATION TO SECTION 110 OF P.D. NO. 1529.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION OF THE ORIGINAL COPY OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 140606 FOR FAILURE OF APPELLEE TO PRESENT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT SHE IS THE OWNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND.[4]
According to the Court of Appeals, the
petition for reconstitution was filed under Sec. 3(f) of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
26 which grants the court the authority to consider other documents which it
finds sufficient and proper bases for the reconstitution prayed for. In this case, the documentary evidence presented
by respondent Gertrudes B. Verzosa, coupled with the Report submitted by the
Land Registration Authority (LRA) confirming the previous existence of TCT No.
140606, is sufficient basis to grant the reconstitution.
The OSG, however, argues that the
photocopy of TCT No. 140606 presented by respondent is not among the
documentary evidence required by R.A. No. 26 and cannot be considered competent
evidence, especially because respondent did not prove that she had exerted
honest efforts to secure the documents enumerated in the law and had failed to
find them.
Respondent’s Comment/Opposition to
Petition[5]
dated
The OSG filed a Reply[6]
dated 15 November 2007, contending that the doctrine of estoppel does not
operate against the government for the acts of its agents, and reiterating that
a petition for reconstitution based on a mere photocopy of the certificate of
title is only regarded as “reconstitution petition based on plainly inferior
evidence.”
We shall first dispose of the issue
of estoppel.
It is a well-settled rule that the state
cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents,
especially absent any showing that it had dealt capriciously or dishonorably
with its citizens.[7] Thus, the OSG’s failure to raise an effective
objection to the evidence presented in support of the petition does not bar
petitioner from assailing the propriety of the reconstitution ordered by the
trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Having said this, we shall now
proceed to the heart of this case.
The reconstitution of a lost or
destroyed certificate of title may be done judicially, in accordance with the
special procedure laid down in R.A. No. 26, or administratively, in accordance
with the provisions of R.A. No. 6732.
The petition in this case sought the judicial reconstitution of TCT No. 140606.
Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 26 enumerates the
sources upon which the reconstitution of transfer certificates of title shall
be based. It provides:
Sec. 3. Transfer 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 titles;
(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) The deed of transfer or other document
on file in the registry of deeds, containing the description of the property,
or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had been
registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer 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
documents, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said
document showing that its original had been registered; and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost destroyed certificate of title.
In relation to the foregoing, Sec. 12 of the same law
provides:
SEC.
12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in Sections 2(c),
2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed
with the proper Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns,
or any person having an interest in the property. The petition shall
state or contain, among other things, the following: (a) that the owner’s
duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no
co-owner’s, mortgagee’s or lessee’s duplicate had been issued, or, if any had
been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed; (c) the location, area and
boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and description of the buildings or
improvements, if any, which do not belong to the owner of the land, and the
names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements; (e) the
names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property,
of the owners of the adjoining properties and of all persons who may have
interest in the property; (f) a detailed decription of the encumbrances, if
any, affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other
instruments affecting the property have been presented for registration, or, if
there be any, the registration thereof has not been accomplished, as yet. All
the documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in
support to the petition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed
with the same: Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made
exclusively from sources enumerated in Section 2(f) or 3(f) of this Act, the
petition shall be further accompanied with a plan and technical description of
the property duly approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration, or with a
certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title
covering the same property.
The petition for reconstitution, in
this case, was accompanied by the following documents:
1.
a copy of TCT No. 140606;
2.
the Certification from the Registry of Deeds of Quezon
City that the original copy thereof was among those burned during the fire that
razed the Quezon City Hall on June 11, 1988;
3.
a certified copy of the Affidavit of Loss executed by
respondent’s co-owner, Edna V. Garcia, attesting to the loss of the same;
4.
the duly approved technical description and survey plan
of the subject property;
5.
the Order dated
6.
the corresponding Tax Declaration and Tax Receipts.[8]
Among the sources enumerated in Sec.
3 of R.A. No. 26, the owner’s duplicate of the transfer certificate of title is
given primacy because such document is, by all accounts, an exact reproduction
of the original copy of the transfer certificate of title. It is required, however, that the owner’s duplicate
certificate itself, and not a mere photocopy thereof, be presented to the
court. This is to preclude any question as to the genuineness and authenticity
of the owner’s duplicate certificate and bar the possibility of reconstitution
based on a fraudulent or forged owner’s duplicate certificate.[9]
In this case, only a photocopy of the
owner’s duplicate was presented to the court. Both the trial court and the
Court of Appeals agree, however, that the petition may be treated as one filed
under Sec. 3(f) of R.A. No. 26. Even petitioner
concedes this point, but argues that the rule on admission of secondary
evidence under Sec. 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court should have first been
complied with.
While, indeed, the petition for
reconstitution may be considered as having been filed under Sec. 3(f) of R.A.
No. 26, the photocopy of the owner’s certificate of title presented by
respondent in support of her petition is still considered secondary evidence.
As such, it is inadmissible unless respondent proves any of the exceptions provided
in Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and establishes the conditions for
their admissibility under Section 5 of the same rule.[10]
In Republic v. Mateo,[11] the
Spouses Lorenzo and Feliciana Mateo filed a petition for the reconstitution of
the original and owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-38769. In support of the petition, the Spouses Mateo presented, among others,
a photocopy of the lost title. The trial
court denied reconstitution. The Court of Appeals, however, declared that the
trial court erred in not giving weight to the photocopy of the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title and ruled that the requirements of the Rules of
Court as regards the introduction of secondary evidence (as an exception to the
best evidence rule) had been complied with.
The Court explained the order of
presentation of secondary evidence under Sec. 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
as existence, execution, loss, contents.
The order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court. The sufficiency of the proof offered as a
predicate for the admission of an allegedly lost document lies within the
judicial discretion of the trial court under all the circumstances of the
particular case.
Ultimately, the Court reinstated the
decision of the trial court because of the failure of the Spouses Mateo to
satisfactorily show that the original of the transfer certificate of title
sought to be reconstituted had been lost or is no longer available, as well as the
illegibility of the photocopy presented.
Although the records of this case do
not disclose that the trial court and the Court of Appeals consciously passed
upon the admissibility of the photocopy presented by respondent, the latter did
submit several documents to prove the existence, execution and contents of the
certificate of title sought to be reconstituted. Among these are the photocopy of TCT No.
140606; the certification from the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City that the
original of the certificate was among those burned in the fire that razed the
City Hall on June 11, 1988; the technical description and survey plan of the
property; the tax declaration and tax receipts; and the report submitted by the
LRA confirming the previous existence of TCT No. 140606.
Respondent also duly proved the loss
of the owner’s copy of the certificate through the Affidavit of Loss dated
The foregoing documents on record
already constitute sufficient bases for reconstituting the lost certificate of
title, even without the photocopy of the title which is disparaged by
petitioner as “plainly inferior evidence.”[12]
Notably, the LRA report states that,
“[T]he plan and technical description of Lot 7, Block 8 of the
consolidation-subdivision plan (LRC) Pcs-1011, were verified correct by this
Authority to represent the aforesaid lot and the same have been approved under
(LRA) PR-18966 pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 26.”[13] The report also mentions that the approved
plan and technical description may be used as bases for the inscription of the
technical description on the reconstituted certificate.[14] The plan and technical description,
furthermore, contain the notations of the LRC that they have been “previously
plotted under the same TCT No. (140606)” sought to be reconstituted.[15]
Petitioner fusses over what appears
to be a disparity in the technical description reflected in the certificate of
title sought to be reconstituted, which states the land area to be 441 square
meters, and the technical description indicated in respondent’s Annex “E,”
which states the land area to be only 221 sq m.
However, it is obvious from Annex “E,” which petitioner incidentally
marked as its own Exhibit “1,” that even before the original of the title was
gutted by fire in 1988, the portion of TCT No. 140606 pertaining to respondent
had already been the subject of a subdivision survey dated
It is correct, as petitioner avers, that
courts must exercise the greatest caution in entertaining petitions for
reconstitution of destroyed or lost certificates of title. In Republic
v. Holazo,[16] the
Court warned that:
The
tampering of genuine certificates of title and the issuance of fake ones are a
widespread malaise that has seriously threatened the very stability of the
x x
x We can take judicial notice of innumerable litigations and controversies that
have been spawned by the reckless and hasty grant of such reconstitution of
alleged lost or destroyed titles as well as of the numerous purchasers who have
been victimized only to find that the “lands” purchased by them were covered by
forged or fake titles or their areas simply “expanded” through “table surveys”
with the cooperation of unscrupulous officials.
However, this caveat should not be
taken to the extent of depriving a person who had already fully complied with
the jurisdictional requirements set forth in R.A. No. 26 from being granted the
reconstitution prayed for. When a court,
after hearing of a petition for reconstitution, finds that the evidence
presented is sufficient and proper to grant the same, that the petitioner
therein is the registered owner of the property, and that the certificate
sought to be reconstituted was in force at the time it was lost, it becomes the
duty of the court to issue the order of reconstitution. This duty is
mandatory. The law does not give the court discretion to deny the
reconstitution if all the basic requirements have been complied with.[17]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified 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
[2]
[7]Public Estates Authority, et al. v. Bolinao
Security and Investigation Service, Inc., G.R. No. 158812,
[16]G.R.
No. 146846,
[17]Republic v. Casimiro, supra. Sec. 15 of RA 26 provides in part:
SEC. 15. If the court, after hearing, finds that the documents presented, as supported by parole evidence or otherwise, are sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, and that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or has an interest therein, that the said certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed certificate of title, an order of reconstitution shall be issued.