Case Digest (G.R. No. 173525)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Gertrudes B. Verzosa, G.R. No. 173525, March 28, 2008, the Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.On January 3, 2001, Gertrudes B. Verzosa filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 140606 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (raffled to Branch 218), docketed as LRC Case No. Q-13686 (01). She alleged co-ownership with her sister Edna Verzosa Garcia, that the original title was destroyed when Quezon City Hall burned on June 11, 1988, and that the owner's duplicate had been lost as shown by an Affidavit of Loss executed by Edna Garcia; she prayed for reconstitution and issuance of an owner's duplicate after due notice and hearing.
The RTC set the case for hearing, ordered publication and service upon the Register of Deeds, the Land Registration Authority (LRA), the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and others. At the first scheduled hearing only an OSG representative appeared. The petitioner's counsel presented evidence; the RTC later permitted further evidence and required impleading of co-owner Edna Garcia. Because of alleged irreconcilable differences, the RTC allowed petitioner to proceed ex parte and she presented her formal offers of evidence in September 2001.
The LRA submitted a Report dated October 30, 2001 confirming that TCT No. 140606 had existed, that the plan and technical description of Lot 7, Block 8 (Pcs-1011) were verified and approved under LRA PR-18966 pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 26, and that the approved plan and description could be used for inscription on the reconstituted certificate. On November 19, 2001, the RTC rendered judgment directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to reconstitute TCT No. 140606.
The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG (Oppositor-Appellant), appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) assigning errors that the petition failed to comply with mandatory requirements of R.A. No. 26 (Secs. 12 and 13, in relation to Sec. 110 of P.D. No. 1529) and that respondent had not presented clear and convincing evidence of ownership. The CA, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, affirmed the RTC on April 3, 2006; a subsequent CA resolution was dated July 10, 2006.
The OSG thereafter filed a petition assailing the CA Decision and Resolution (petition dated August 22, 2006). The OSG argued that the photocopy of the owner's duplicate TCT was not among the R.A. No. 26 enumerated documentary sources and was merely "plainly inferior" secondary evidence requiring compliance with the best-evidence rule (Sec. 5, Rule 130, Rules of Court). Respondent contended inter alia that the OSG was estopped from a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the doctrine of estoppel bar the Republic (through the OSG) from assailing the propriety of the reconstitution because its representative failed to object to evidence at the trial court?
- Were the documents presented by respondent sufficient to warrant judicial reconstitution of TCT No. 140606 under R.A. No. 26, despite the presentation of only a photocopy of the owner's duplicate (i.e., was the evidence sufficient and admissible ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)