Case Digest (G.R. No. 162787)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Lourdes F. Alonte, G.R. No. 162787, June 13, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.On August 10, 2001 (petition dated July 27, 2001), Lourdes F. Alonte filed a Petition for the Reconstitution of the Original of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 335986 and for the issuance of the corresponding owner’s duplicate covering Lot 18‑B (80.95 sq. m.) in what is now Quezon City, alleging that the original title was destroyed when the Quezon City Register of Deeds office burned on June 11, 1988 and that the owner’s duplicate was lost (Affidavit of Loss dated July 9, 2001). The petition included a photocopy of the TCT, tax declarations, a technical description, various certifications from City offices, and a Special Power of Attorney designating Editha Alonte to represent the petitioner at an ex parte hearing held January 4, 2002 because the registered owner was then in the United States.
The trial court (Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 82) found the petition sufficient in form and substance (Order dated August 29, 2001), conducted an ex parte hearing, and received documentary evidence and a Report from the Land Registration Authority. The LRA’s Report dated August 2, 2002 verified that the plan and technical description corresponded to the lot and were approved under LRA PR‑19193 pursuant to Section 12 of R.A. No. 26. On August 13, 2002 the RTC granted the petition and directed the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to reconstitute the original copy of TCT No. 335986 and to issue a new owner’s duplicate upon payment of fees.
A Certificate of Finality was issued on September 3, 2002 but was revoked on September 10, 2002 when the RTC gave due course to the Notice of Appeal filed by the Office of the Solicitor General. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated February 26, 2004 (penning Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes), affirmed the RTC’s grant of reconstitution, holding that the courts properly applied Section 3(f) of R.A. No. 26, which permits reconstitution from “any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis.” The Republic of the Philippines (through the Solicitor General) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal on grounds that respondent failed to comply with the mandatory, jurisdictional requirements of R.A. No. 26 (Sections 12 and 13) and related administrative rules (e.g., alleged absence of tracing cloth plan under LRC Circular No. 35, Section 5(a); alleged failure to register the Affidavit of Loss with the Registry of Deeds).
Issues:
- Whether the Court should disturb the RTC’s factual findings, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, on petition for review under Rule 45.
- Whether respondent complied with the mandatory requirements of R.A. No. 26 (Sections 12 and 13) and applicable administrative prescriptions so as to justify the reconstitution of TCT No. 335986.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)