Facts:

This case, Republic of the Philippines v. Cesar C. Pasicolan and Gregorio C. Pasicolan (G.R. No. 198543), revolves around a petition for the reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 8450, originally in the name of Pedro Callueng. The respondents, Cesar C. Pasicolan and Gregorio C. Pasicolan, filed their petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, asserting that they were the legal and forced heirs of the deceased owner, Pedro Callueng. They supported their petition with various exhibits, including certifications and decrees from relevant authorities. The RTC ruled on October 8, 2004, granting the petition based on the evidence provided, and directed the Register of Deeds of Cagayan to reconstitute the lost original certificate.

The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), contended that the RTC erred in its decision. Specifically, it claimed the respondents failed to present competent

...

Facts:

Filing of the Petition for Reconstitution

• Respondents, Cesar C. Pasicolan and Gregorio C. Pasicolan, filed a Petition for Reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 8450 in the name of Pedro Callueng before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.
• The respondents claimed to be the legal and forced heirs of the late Pedro Callueng and sought to have the lost or destroyed original certificate reconstituted.

Documentary Evidence Submitted

• To support their petition, respondents presented a series of documents including, but not limited to:
• Exhibit A – Decree No. 339880
• Technical description
• Sepia film plan
• Certifications issued by both the Registry of Deeds and the Land Registration Authority (LRA)
• Reports and official publications (e.g., Official Gazette volumes, city certification, and Notice of Appearance by the Solicitor General)
• Declarations of real property and official receipts, among others.
• The respondents relied on Section 2(d) of Republic Act No. 26, which permits reconstitution based on an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent.

Decisions of the Lower Courts

• Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision (October 8, 2004)
• The RTC found that the petition was sufficient in form and substance.
• It subsequently directed the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cagayan to reconstitute and issue a new owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 8450.
• Court of Appeals (CA) Decision (September 6, 2011)
• The CA, after reviewing the briefs and evidences, affirmed the RTC’s decision.
• It gave weight to the respondents’ documentary evidence and the report of the LRA, which acknowledged the existence (albeit not the availability) of Decree No. 339880.

Intervention by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)

• The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, challenging the RTC and CA decisions.
• The OSG argued that:
• Respondents failed to present competent evidence establishing that the lost certificate was valid and subsisting at the time of its loss.
• The mere submission of a copy of Decree No. 339880 did not satisfy the requirements under Section 2(d) of RA 26.
• Additional issues raised by the OSG included:
• The absence of an affidavit of loss as required by Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
• The contradictory evidence regarding the authenticity and availability of the decree from the LRA.

Contentious Points Regarding the Documentary Evidence

• The respondents’ evidence centered on the submission of Decree No. 339880, among other documents.
• Testimonies indicated that the decree was allegedly secured from the LRA, even though the LRA’s records admitted that a copy of the decree was no longer available in its files.
• The respondents also submitted technical descriptions, survey plans, and tax declarations to bolster their claim; however, doubts persisted about the genuineness and sufficiency of these documents.

Issue:

• Whether respondents presented competent and authentic evidence, particularly the alleged decree of registration (Decree No. 339880), to serve as a proper basis for the reconstitution of OCT No. 8450 under Section 2(d) of RA 26.

• Whether the trial court erred in granting the petition for reconstitution by accepting the documentary evidence as sufficient, despite the admission by the LRA that the decree was no longer available in its records.

• Whether the absence of an affidavit of loss and the vague, inconsistent testimony of the respondents regarding the loss of the title undermines their claim that the original certificate was truly lost or destroyed.

• Whether the non-participation or oversight by government agencies (e.g., the absence of opposition from the state) affects the validity of the petition for reconstitution.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)