G.R. No. 187892 - Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc. vs. Republic

On April 16, 2004, Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc. (petitioner) filed a verified petition with the RTC of Legaspi City seeking the reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4784, in accordance with Republic Act (RA) No. 26 and Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529.
The petition alleged that petitioner was the registered owner of a mining patent issued on July 20, 1962 by then President Diosdado Macapagal and that the OCT was on record in the Registry of Deeds of Albay but its certified true copy could not be located, leading to the claim of the document’s permanent loss or destruction.
Petitioner attached an owner’s duplicate of OCT No. VH-4784 as the basis for reconstitution, asserting that the property was free from liens, encumbrances, or any pending instruments affecting it.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legaspi City, Branch 4, rendered a decision on July 17, 2006, dismissing the petition based on insufficient documentary requirements.

The RTC held that the owner’s duplicate presented lacked the signature of the Register of Deeds, Ramon Balana, on both the face and dorsal sides, rendering it a mere scrap of paper without probative value.
The court further noted that granting reconstitution under such circumstances would undermine the necessary formalities of the Torrens system by opening the floodgates to potential fraud.

The petition was subsequently elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA), where petitioner appealed the RTC’s dismissal.

In its decision dated January 21, 2009, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling, emphasizing that petitioner is not the owner of the surface land, which was already titled to Rapu Rapu Minerals, Inc., but holds only the mining patent (the right to explore and extract minerals beneath the surface).

A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated May 7, 2009.

During the trial, petitioner’s counsel demonstrated compliance with jurisdictional requirements and presented evidence regarding the lost title and the owner’s duplicate certificate.
A key witness, Atty. Cela Magdalen A. Agpaoa, provided detailed testimony regarding:

The geographical location of the mining patent, notably in Rapu Rapu, Albay, with specific reference to several barangays and surface lots.
His personal inspection and negotiation with original owners, showing firsthand knowledge of the surface lots overlapping the mining patent as evidenced by documents such as the Report by the Land Registration Authority.
The fact that the surface lands were registered under Rapu Rapu Minerals, Inc., an affiliated company, thereby emphasizing that petitioner did not control the surface title.

The CA relied on an earlier decision in Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, which clarified that as holders of a mining patent, petitioners do not automatically acquire the title or the ownership of the surface land.
The decision also placed weight on the statutory provisions of RA No. 26 regarding petitions for reconstitution, focusing on the requirements of evidentiary authenticity, such as the presence of an original signature.

Whether the proper subject of reconstitution in the case is petitioner’s mining patent—which confers the right to explore and extract minerals—or the land title (OCT) itself, which serves only as an instrument of registration.
The argument centers on whether the reconstitution sought is a reconstitution of evidence of the state’s grant of mining rights rather than a reconstitution of ownership of surface land.

Whether the omission of the Register of Deeds’ signature on the owner’s duplicate, even if resulting from inadvertence and absent fraudulent intent, results in the entire instrument (including the mining patent) being rendered void, thereby precluding reconstitution.
The legal implication touches on the integrity of the Torrens system where such formalities are essential to ensure conclusiveness and registration system protection.