G.R. No. 195726 - Dela Paz vs. Republic

Marcelino Dela Paz filed a verified petition for the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 206714, covering a parcel of land in Quezon City.
The petition was based on the contention that the original copy of the title was destroyed in a fire that razed the Quezon City Hall building on June 11, 1988, and that the owner’s duplicate copy subsequently was lost.

The subject property was initially part of an extrajudicial settlement dated October 23, 2000, among the heirs of Luz Dela Paz.
Marcelino and his mother, Jenny Rose Dela Paz, purchased the property on November 23, 2005.

Photocopy of TCT No. 206714, though its credibility was impaired since the owner’s name was deliberately concealed.
Real property tax declarations and receipts showing payment of real property tax for the property.
Sketch plan and subdivision plan accompanied by a certified microfilm copy of the plan and a technical description on file with the Land Registration Authority (LRA).
An LRA report stating that the approved plan and technical description may serve as a basis for reconstitution.
Affidavits of loss attesting to the destruction and subsequent loss of the title copies.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition, ordering the reconstitution of TCT No. 206714 based on the approved subdivision plan and technical description.
The decision was later reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on the basis that the documentary evidence was insufficient and failed to match the explicit requirements for reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26.

Whether the evidence presented by Marcelino Dela Paz, including the photocopy of TCT, extrajudicial settlement, deed of sale, tax declarations, and LRA documents, constituted competent proof for the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed title.
Whether these documents met the specific procedural and statutory requirements provided under Republic Act No. 26.

Whether the documents submitted fell within the sources enumerated in Section 3 of R.A. No. 26 (i.e., the owner’s duplicate, certified copy, or deed of transfer) for reconstituting a certificate of title.
Whether the evidentiary value of the secondary and additional documents (such as the sketch plan, subdivision plan, and LRA report) was sufficient to authenticate the existence and original contents of TCT No. 206714.

The CA questioned why the petition for reconstitution was filed nineteen years after the said copy’s destruction and why the heirs failed to act on reconstituting the title during their possession.
The issue of whether the delay and the manner of presenting the evidences compromised the legitimacy of reconstitution.