G.R. No. 182980 - Castillo vs. Republic

Bienvenido Castillo, a Filipino, widower, and registered owner of a parcel of land in Pulilan, Bulacan, filed a petition on March 7, 2002, for the reconstitution and issuance of a second owner’s copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-16755.
The petition alleged that the original copy of the certificate of title was lost or destroyed during a fire in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on March 7, 1987, and that the owner’s duplicate copy had been similarly lost.
The petition attached various annexes which included a zerox copy of the TCT, technical description and subdivision plan, tax declaration, real estate tax receipt, and an Affidavit of Loss, among others.
Bienvenido’s petition contained minimal details regarding co-owners despite the existence of other heirs, such as his son Fernando and siblings named Emma and Elpidio.

The petition was served with ancillary documents and instructions from the trial court and the Land Registration Authority (LRA), including an order to submit an original technical description certified by the LRA/LM Bureau and corresponding photographic and blueprint copies.
Bienvenido complied with the supplemental order by filing the required documents within the 15-day period imposed by the trial court.
An additional order directed Bienvenido to provide the names and addresses of any occupants of the property, to which he responded that there were none.

On October 4, 2002, the trial court found the petition sufficient in form and substance and set it for hearing.
The trial court published and posted copies of its October 4, 2002 order on three bulletin boards (Bulacan Provincial Capitol, Pulilan Municipal Building, and Bulacan Regional Trial Court) and published the order twice in the Official Gazette (January 13, 2003 and January 20, 2003) as required under the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 26.

Fernando Castillo, acting as attorney-in-fact for Bienvenido, testified on behalf of his father, presenting evidence such as the photocopy of TCT No. T-16755, blueprint, technical description, Affidavit of Loss, and supporting documents (e.g., tax declarations and real estate tax receipts).
Fernando’s testimony also revealed that the title was originally issued in the names of Bienvenido and his deceased wife, Felisa Cruz, and that additional documentary evidence (such as a Deed of Absolute Sale, cancellation of mortgage, and extra-judicial partition) existed regarding the property.

On October 3, 2003, the trial court promulgated its decision granting Bienvenido’s petition, ordering the Register of Deeds for Bulacan to reconstitute the original TCT and issue a second owner’s duplicate copy in the name of the registered owner, subject to payment of fees and provided that no other title covering the same property existed in the office.
The trial court based its order on the provisions of Republic Act No. 26, as amended by P.D. No. 1529.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Notice of Appeal on November 18, 2003, challenging the trial court’s reconstitution order on procedural grounds, particularly noting that the prayer for reconstitution was not specifically contained in the petition and that reliance on a photocopy of TCT was insufficient.
On October 23, 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the petition failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements prescribed in Republic Act No. 26, notably in the order of documents to be utilized for reconstitution and in providing proper notice to all interested parties.
Bienvenido’s counsel subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or for New Trial on December 3, 2007, citing additional evidence; however, the appellate court denied the motion in its Resolution dated May 7, 2008.

Republic Act No. 26 provides a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title, enumerating a strict order of documentary sources (Section 3) and setting out specific requirements for petitions (Section 12) and notice of hearing (Section 13).
The case analysis reveals that Bienvenido admitted to being unable to comply with specific sources (Sections 3(a) to 3(e)), thereby relying solely on the discretionary provision under Section 3(f), which is subject to strict statutory compliance.
The trial court’s actions, including the publication and posting of its orders, were juxtaposed with the statutory omissions in the petition—namely the failure to mention co-owners and other interested parties—which were critical for acquiring jurisdiction.

The failure to fully observe the mandatory requirements of Republic Act No. 26, particularly regarding complete notice and inclusion of all co-owners, resulted in the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction over the petition.
Consequently, the reconstitution of TCT No. T-16755 was deemed void, affording the Court of Appeals the ground to set aside the trial court’s decision and dismiss the petition.

Whether the documentary evidence (primarily the photocopy of TCT and the approved plan and technical description) presented by petitioner was sufficient to justify the reconstitution of the original certificate of title.

Whether petitioner adequately established the circumstances surrounding the loss or destruction of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-16755, despite the existence of supportive documents like the Affidavit of Loss.

Whether the petition met the mandatory procedural requirements under Republic Act No. 26, particularly the notice requirements (Sections 12 and 13) and the inclusion of all necessary details, such as the involvement of co-owners and interested parties.

Whether the additional documents and evidence submitted in the Motion for Reconsideration and/or for New Trial constituted newly discovered evidence or sufficient grounds to alter the decision of the trial and appellate courts.