Case Digest (G.R. No. 239505)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Rogelio B. Ciruelas, G.R. No. 239505, February 17, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Delos Santos, J., writing for the Court.The petition arises from a petition filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 85, Lipa City, for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-62328 and for correction of the registered owner’s family name from Ceruelas to Ciruelas. The petition was filed by Dominador B. Ciruelas as attorney‑in‑fact of his brother Rogelio B. Ciruelas (hereinafter Rogelio) after Rogelio executed an Affidavit of Loss stating he lost the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328, which the Register of Deeds for Batangas Province certified exists in its records and wherein the Affidavit was annotated on the title (Entry No. 564092).
Dominador presented the petition ex parte because there was no opposition. He offered into evidence the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Rogelio, Rogelio’s Affidavit of Loss (dated October 9, 2013), the Register of Deeds’ certification and related documentary proof, and testified to the circumstances of the loss and the alleged misspelling of the family name.
On March 28, 2014, the RTC rendered judgment granting the petition and ordering cancellation of the lost owner’s duplicate, issuance of a new owner’s duplicate entitled to like faith and credit, and correction of the family name on TCT No. T-62328 from CERUELAS to CIRUELAS; the RTC later issued an Amended Decision to include the surname correction after denying OSG’s motion for reconsideration and granting Dominador’s motion for clarification.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), acting for the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and contested (inter alia) that the SPA was not registered as required under Section 64 of P.D. No. 1529, that Dominador lacked personal knowledge to authenticate the loss, and that the appellate court erred in allowing a surname correction in the same Section 109 proceeding rather than under Section 108. On December 1, 2017 the CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC’s Amended Decision, holding the SPA registration was not a prerequisite to validity, that sufficient evidence supported reconstitution of the lost TCT, and that joining the correction with the reconstitution was justified to avoid multiplicity of suits; the CA...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether Dominador, as attorney‑in‑fact, had authority to file the petition for a new owner’s duplicate and to execute the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping.
- Whether the fact of loss of the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. T-62328 was sufficiently established to warrant issuance of a new owner’s duplicate under Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529.
- Whether a certificate of title may be altered in the same proceeding for judicial reconstitution instead of by a Section 108 amendment (i.e., pro...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)