Case Digest (G.R. No. 166899)
Facts:
Heirs of Pastora Lozano, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, Eduardo Lozano v. The Register of Deeds, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166899, August 10, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Pastora R. Lozano filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Villasis, Pangasinan (Branch 50) a petition on August 7, 1998 for the reconstitution of the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 17100 (Cad. Lot No. 196). The RTC issued an order on August 12, 1998 setting an initial hearing for December 2, 1998; a sheriff’s return dated August 20, 1998 recited posting of that August 12 order. The December 2 hearing did not proceed and the case was reset; on January 11, 1999 the RTC noted that its August 12, 1998 order had not been published as required and set a new initial hearing for July 8, 1999.
Petitioner died March 27, 1999 and her heirs sought substitution, attaching a Special Power of Attorney appointing German R. Lozano as representative. At the July 8, 1999 hearing petitioners failed to prove posting of the RTC’s January 11, 1999 order, yet the RTC entered an Order of General Default and later received testimonial and documentary evidence, including an owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 17100 that lacked the Register of Deeds’ signature and had a handwritten title number. German Lozano testified concerning possession and family recollection of ownership but admitted gaps in documentary proof and in scrutinizing a technical description obtained from DENR.
On January 26, 2000 the RTC granted reconstitution, directing the Register of Deeds of Lingayen to reconstitute the office file based on the owner’s duplicate. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on August 27, 2004 reversed: the CA found the owner’s duplicate unsigned by the Register of Deeds, with a handwritten title number, and therefore spurious and not a competent source for reconstitution; the CA also criticized the trial court’s lax verification of documents. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction to hear the petition for reconstitution where petitioners failed to prove posting of the RTC’s January 11, 1999 Order as required by law?
- Is an owner’s duplicate of a certificate of title that does not bear the signature of the Register of Deeds a competent source on which to base reconstitu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)