Case Digest (G.R. No. 195726)
Facts:
Marcelino Dela Paz v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 195726, November 20, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Martires, J., writing for the Court. The petition was filed under Rule 45.Petitioner Marcelino Dela Paz sought judicial reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 206714 covering a 500-square-meter parcel in Bagbag, Quezon City, alleging the original title was destroyed in the 11 June 1988 fire that razed Quezon City Hall and that the owner’s duplicate was lost. Marcelino averred he and his mother purchased the lot on 23 November 2005; the lot had earlier been the subject of an extrajudicial settlement among the heirs of Luz Dela Paz dated 23 October 2000.
In the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 220, Quezon City, Marcelino submitted documentary evidence including a photocopy of TCT No. 206714, tax declarations and receipts, an affidavit of loss, an extrajudicial sketch plan and subdivision plan, and a Land Registration Authority (LRA) report stating the plan and technical description were verified and could be used as a basis for inscription. The RTC granted the petition and ordered reconstitution of the title in the name of Luz Dela Paz and issuance of a second owner’s duplicate to Marcelino.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 91196, reversed and dismissed the petition. The CA found the evidence insufficient: the extrajudicial settlement and deed of sale were not presented to prove the title’s issuance or filed with the Registry of Deeds as required under R.A. No. 26; the Registry’s fire-certification was pro forma; the photocopy of the title was secondary evidence and the owner’s name in it was concealed; the tax documents were not competent for reconstitution; and the subdivision plan and LRA report did not establish that the lot was actually covered by TCT No. 206714.
Aggrieved, Marcelino filed a Rule 45 petition challenging the CA’s 4 October 2010 Decis...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court re-examine factual findings when the Court of Appeals has reversed the trial court?
- Did petitioner present competent, clear and convincing evidence to warrant judicial reconstitution of TCT No. 206714 under R.A. No. 26...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)