Title
Republic vs. Heirs of Booc
Case
G.R. No. 207159
Decision Date
Feb 28, 2022
Heirs of Booc sought reconstitution of lost OCTs for three lots in Lapu-Lapu City, contested by MCIAA. SC dismissed due to jurisdictional defects, insufficient evidence, and procedural lapses.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 207159)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Property and Title Background
    • The controversy involves three lots located in Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu:
      • Lot No. 4749 – 2,813 square meters
      • Lot No. 4765 – 5,507 square meters
      • Lot No. 4777 – 6,973 square meters
    • Historically, the lands were awarded to the Booc family (Eduardo, Mercedes, Aurelia, Pedro, Florentino, and Feliciana Booc) through three January 20, 1930 decisions rendered by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu.
    • Subsequent decrees issued in 1934 (Decree Nos. 531394, 531367, and 531382) directed the registration of the subject lots in favor of the Boocs, and original certificates of title (OCTs) were allegedly issued thereafter.
  • Loss of Certificates and the Reconstitution Petition
    • The original certificates of title were lost or destroyed during World War II, as attested by a June 26, 1998 certification of the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City.
    • In July 1998, the respondents (heirs of the Booc family) filed a petition for the judicial reconstitution of the lost OCTs, asserting:
      • The titles, though lost or destroyed, were in force at the time of the incident.
      • No duplicate certificates (be they of co-owner, mortgagee, or lessee origin) had been issued.
    • The petition was supported by documentary evidence including:
      • Certified true copies of the 1930 CFI decisions awarding the lots to the Boocs.
      • Certified true copies of the 1934 decrees directing the registration of the subject lots.
      • Technical descriptions, sketch plans, and the Register of Deeds’ certification attesting to the loss/destruction of the OCTs.
      • Certifications from various court clerks confirming that no earlier petition for reconstitution had been filed.
  • Adjoining Properties and Possession
    • Detailed boundary descriptions were presented for each lot, listing adjacent properties and their respective owners in Buaya, Lapu-Lapu City.
    • Actual possession of the subject lots was evidenced by:
      • Mactan Export Processing Zone Authority (MEPZA) possessing Lot No. 4749.
      • Mactan International Airport Authority (MIAA) possessing Lots Nos. 4765 and 4777.
  • Procedural Developments and Opposition
    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lapu-Lapu City (Branch 27) initially granted the petition for reconstitution on November 19, 2008, ordering the reconstitution of the OCTs upon payment of fees and subject to certain liens.
    • The government, through the Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA), opposed the petition arguing:
      • The subject lots were owned by the government (originating from transactions evidenced by deeds of sale dated 1957 and 1958).
      • The opposition claimed that reconstitution proceedings should not preclude resolving the issue of ownership in an ordinary action.
    • The RTC dismissed MCIAA’s opposition on jurisdictional grounds and consolidated the parties as real parties-in-interest under RA 26.
  • Notice and Procedural Irregularities
    • The RTC issued an Amended Order and Notice of Hearing directing publication in the Official Gazette and posting at designated government buildings.
    • Critical deficiencies arose in the notice of hearing:
      • The notice failed to indicate the specific numbers of the lost OCTs, only referring vaguely to “Original Certificate of Title of Lot Nos. 4749, 4765, and 4777.”
      • It did not properly identify the current possessors (MEPZA and MIAA), nor did it specify the area, boundaries, and other material particulars required under RA 26.
    • Respondents’ petition likewise did not comply with other mandatory procedural requirements—such as providing complete addresses, a detailed description of encumbrances (e.g., the deeds of absolute sale involving MCIAA), or an affidavit of loss regarding the duplicate certificate.
  • Appeals and Contentions Raised
    • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision on April 24, 2013, holding that the absence of title numbers did not fatally defeat the petition for reconstitution.
    • The petitioner (Republic of the Philippines) raised issues on appeal alleging:
      • There was no evidence that the subject lots were registered under the Torrens system, hence no valid OCT existed for reconstitution.
      • The failure to indicate title numbers in the decisions and decrees undermined the legitimacy of the reconstitution proceedings.
    • Respondents maintained that:
      • The Register of Deeds’ certification and other documentary evidence sufficiently proved the issuance (and existence) of the OCTs at the time they were lost or destroyed.
      • The legal requirement to state the title number "if known" under Section 13 of RA 26 had been met in substance, despite the omission.

Issues:

  • Existence and Validity of the Certificates of Title
    • Whether there is sufficient proof that the subject lots were originally registered under the Torrens system with valid OCTs issued in the name of the Boocs.
    • Whether evidence such as the CFI decisions, cadastral decrees, and the Register of Deeds’ certification can establish that the OCTs were in force prior to their loss or destruction.
  • Compliance with Procedural and Jurisdictional Requirements under RA 26
    • Whether the petition for reconstitution conformed to the mandatory procedural requirements set forth in Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26.
    • Whether the failure to indicate the title numbers and to provide complete particulars (addresses, description of encumbrances, details of possession) constitutes a fatal defect that deprives the court of jurisdiction over the petition.
  • Impact of Evidence Deficiencies on the Reconstitution Process
    • Whether the documentary evidence and witness testimony presented are sufficient to prove the existence and validity of the original certificates.
    • The effect of the absence of an affidavit of loss and tax declarations on establishing an unbroken chain of ownership or possession.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms