REPUBLIC
OF THE
Petitioner,
Present:
Carpio, J., Chairperson,
- versus - Brion,
Del Castillo,
Abad, and
Perez, JJ.
APOLINARIO CATARROJA,
REYNALDO CATARROJA, and Promulgated:
ROSITA CATARROJA-DISTRITO,
Respondents. February 12, 2010
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD,
J.:
This
is about a petition for reconstitution of a lost original certificate of title in
which the respondents have been unable to present evidence that such title had
in fact been issued by an appropriate land registration court.
The Facts and the Case
Respondents
Apolinario Catarroja, Reynaldo Catarroja, and Rosita Catarroja-Distrito (the
Catarrojas) filed a petition for reconstitution of lost original certificate of
title covering two lots in Zapang, Ternate,
The
Land Registration Authority (LRA) issued a certification on August 3, 1998[3]
and a report on February 4, 2002,[4]
confirming that the land registration court issued Decree 749932 on May 21,
1941 covering the subject lots. A copy
of this decree was, however, no longer available in the records of the LRA. The LRA report verified as correct the plans
and technical descriptions of the subject lots which had been approved under
LRA PR-19042 and LRA PR-19043.
The
Catarrojas alleged that, pursuant to the decree, the Register of Deeds of
Cavite issued an original certificate of title to their parents. But, as it happened, based on a certification
issued by the Register of Deeds, the original on file with it was lost in the
fire that gutted the old
Since
the public prosecutor representing the government did not object to the
admission of the evidence of the Catarrojas and since he said that he had no
evidence to refute their claims, the case was submitted for decision.[7] On June 27, 2003 the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of
On
appeal, however, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision.[9] It held that the evidence of the Catarrojas
failed to establish any of the sources for reconstitution enumerated in Section
2 of Republic Act (R.A.) 26 (An act providing a special procedure for
reconstitution of
The Issue Presented
The
sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding
sufficient evidence to grant the petition for reconstitution of title.
The Court’s Ruling
R.A.
26 governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed
(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 had 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.
Admittedly,
the Catarrojas have been unable to present any of the documents mentioned in
paragraphs (a) to (e) above. Their
parents allegedly lost the owner’s duplicate certificate of title. They did not have a certified copy of such
certificate of title or a co-owner’s, a mortgagee’s, or a lessee’s duplicate of
the same. The LRA itself no longer has a
copy of the original decree or an authenticated copy of it. Likewise, the Register
of Deeds did not have any document of encumbrance on file that shows the
description of the property.
The
only documentary evidence the Catarrojas could produce as possible sources for
the reconstitution of the lost title are those other documents described in
paragraph (f). Relying on this, they
submitted the following documents:
1.
The Microfilm printouts of the Official
Gazette dated February 25, 1941, Vol. 39, No. 24, Pages 542-543, showing a
notice of hearing in LRC 482, GLRO Record 54798, respecting their parents’
application for registration and confirmation of their title to the subject
lots.[11]
2.
A certification issued by the LRA dated
August 3, 1998, stating that, based on official records, GLRO Record 54798,
3.
A certification from the Register of Deeds
of Cavite dated July 3, 1999, stating that it cannot ascertain whether the land
covered by Decree 749932 and GLRO Record 54798 had been issued a certificate of
title because its titles were arranged numerically and not by lot numbers,
location, or names of registered owners. The Register of Deeds also certified that all
their records were lost in the June 7, 1959 fire.[13]
4.
The Report of the LRA dated February 4,
2002, stating that based on their record book of decrees, Decree 749932 had
been issued on May 21, 1941 covering the subject lots under GLRO Record 54798.
The report also verified as correct the plans (Psu-111787 and Psu-111788) and
technical descriptions of the subject lots and approved under LRA PR-19042 and
LRA PR-19043.[14]
5.
An Affidavit of Loss dated December 14,
2001, stating that the duplicate certificate of title covering the subject lots
had been lost.[15]
This
Court has, in Republic v. Intermediate
Appellate Court,[16] applied
the principle of ejusdem generis in interpreting
Section 2(f) of R.A. 26. “Any other
document” refers to reliable documents of the kind described in the preceding
enumerations. This Court is not convinced
that the above documents of the Catarrojas fall in the same class as those
enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (e). None of them proves that a certificate of
title had in fact been issued in the name of their parents. In
Republic v. Tuastumban,[17] the
Court ruled that the documents must come from official sources which recognize
the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-interest. None of the documents presented in this case
fit such description.
Moreover
the Catarrojas failed to show that they exerted efforts to look for and avail
of the sources in paragraphs (a) to (e) before availing themselves of the
sources in paragraph (f). The Court said
in Republic v. Holazo[18] that
the documents referred to in Sec. 2(f) may be resorted to only in the absence
of the preceding documents in the list. Only if the petitioner for reconstitution
fails to show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such documents and failed
to find them, can the presentation of the “other document” as evidence in
substitution be allowed.
Further,
in Republic v. Tuastumban[19] the
Court enumerated what needs to be shown before the issuance of an order for
reconstitution: (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed;
(b) that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to
warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title; (c) that
the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest
therein; (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost
or destroyed; and (e) that the description, area and boundaries of the property
are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed
certificate of title.
The
microfilm printouts of the Official Gazette are not proof that a certificate of
title was in fact issued in the name of the Catarrojas’ parents. The
publication in the Official Gazette only proved that the couple took the
initial step of publishing their claim to the property. There was no showing, however, that the application
had been granted and that a certificate of title was issued to them.
Although
the LRA’s certification and its report confirmed the issuance of a decree, these
documents do not sufficiently prove that a title had in fact been issued to the
parents of the Catarrojas pursuant to such decree. Indeed, it remains uncertain what kind of
decree the land registration court issued in the case. Significantly, Act 496 (the 1903 Land
Registration Act) which was then in force recognized two kinds of decrees in
land registration proceedings: first, a decree issued under Section 37 that
dismisses the application and, second, a decree issued under Section 38 confirming
title of ownership and its registration.[20]
SECTION 37. If
in any case without adverse claim the court finds that the applicant has no
proper title for registration, a decree shall be entered dismissing the
application, and such decree may be ordered to be without prejudice x x x.
SECTION 38. If the court after
hearing finds that the applicant or adverse claimant has title as stated in his
application or adverse claim and proper registration, a decree of confirmation
and registration shall be entered x x x.
Absent
a clear and convincing proof that an original certificate of title had in fact
been issued to their parents in due course, the Catarrojas cannot claim that
their predecessors succeeded in acquiring title to the subject lots. The nature of reconstitution of a lost or
destroyed certificate of title denotes a restoration of the instrument in its
original form and condition. That cannot
be done without proof that such certificate of title had once existed. The procedures laid down in R.A. 26 for
reconstituting a title have to be strictly followed considering that
reconstitution, if made easy, could be the source of anomalous titles. It could also be unscrupulously availed of by
some as a convenient substitute for the rigid proceedings involved in original
registration of title.[21]
The
Court observes that the subject property, supposedly located in Ternate,
Parenthetically,
the Catarrojas did not present any tax declaration covering such vast piece of
property. Although a tax declaration is
not a proof of ownership, payment of realty tax is an exercise of ownership
over the property and is the payer’s unbroken chain of claim of ownership over
it. Furthermore, the Catarrojas’ procrastination
of over five decades before finally seeking reconstitution of title has allowed
laches to set in.
Once
again, courts must be cautious against hasty and reckless grant of petitions
for reconstitution, especially when they involve vast properties as in this
case.[22]
WHEREFORE,
the Court GRANTS the petition, REVERSES the amended decision of the Court
of Appeals dated February 23, 2006, and REINSTATES
its decision dated July 12, 2005 in CA-G.R. CV 80401 that denied the petition
for reconstitution of title of respondents Apolinario Catarroja, Reynaldo
Catarroja, and Rosita Catarroja-Distrito.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate
Justice
ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
JOSE
P. PEREZ
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
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]
Exhibit “A,” records, pp. 1-6.
[2]
Exhibit “Q” (inadvertently marked as Exhibit “F”), id. at 7-8.
[3]
Exhibit “R” (inadvertently marked as Exhibit “G”), id. at 9.
[4]
Exhibit “E,” id. at 24-25.
[5]
Exhibit “H,” id. at 10.
[6]
Exhibit “S” (inadvertently marked as Exhibit “H”), id. at 11.
[7] Manifestation and Comment dated May 20, 2003,
id. at 115; RTC Order dated May 30, 2003, id. at 116.
[8]
[9]
CA rollo, pp. 94-104.
[10]
[11]
Exhibit “Q” (inadvertently marked as Exhibit “F”), records, pp. 7-8.
[12]
Exhibit “R” (inadvertently marked as Exhibit “G”), id. at 110.
[13]
Exhibit “H,” id. at 10.
[14]
Exhibit “E,” id. at 24-25.
[15]
Exhibit “S” (inadvertently marked as Exhibit “H”), id. at 11.
[16]
241 Phil. 75, 81 (1988).
[17]
G.R. No. 173210, April 24, 2009.
[18]
480 Phil. 828, 840 (2004).
[19]
Supra note 17.
[20]
Registration of Land Titles and
Deeds, Peña, 1988 Revised Edition, p. 86.
[21]
Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership
v. Judge Velasco, 343 Phil. 115, 136 (1997).
[22]
Angat v. Republic, G.R. No.
175788, June 30, 2009.