Title
Dela Paz vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 195726
Decision Date
Nov 20, 2017
Marcelino Dela Paz sought reconstitution of a lost land title, but the Supreme Court denied his petition, ruling that his evidence failed to meet the stringent requirements under R.A. No. 26 for clear and convincing proof of the title's existence and loss.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195726)

Facts of the Case

On June 5, 2007, Marcelino filed a verified petition for the reconstitution of TCT No. 206714, which described a parcel of land in Bagbag, Quezon City. The original title was claimed to have been destroyed in a fire on June 11, 1988, at the Quezon City Hall. Marcelino presented various evidentiary documents, including a photocopy of the title, real property tax declarations, and an affidavit of loss, to demonstrate the existence of the title and its prior ownership by Luz Dela Paz.

RTC Decision

Upon reviewing the documentation, the RTC ruled in favor of Marcelino, granting the reconstitution of the title based on the evidence presented, deeming it a proper case for reconstitution under the law, thereby ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to issue a new title to Marcelino.

CA Reversal

The CA reversed the RTC's decision, citing insufficient evidence to support Marcelino’s claim. It emphasized that vital parties, such as the heirs of Luz Dela Paz, did not testify, and necessary documents like the sale contracts were not registered with the Registry of Deeds, compromising their credibility. The CA raised concerns about the authenticity of the documents submitted, notably a certification regarding the title’s destruction and the nature of the secondary evidence like the photocopy of TCT No. 206714.

Basis for CA's Findings

The CA laid out multiple reasons for its dismissal of Marcelino’s petition. Among them were the non-presentation of original sources required under Republic Act No. 26, specifically that the legal ownership sequence was not sufficiently established. The court underscored that mere tax declarations and affidavits could not meet the legal threshold for reconstitution, as reconstitution proceedings hinge on clear and convincing evidence that directly aligns with statutory requirements.

Legal Standards for Reconstitution

The Court established that in reconstitution proceedings, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to demonstrate, with clear and convincing evidence, that a certificate of title existed and was destroyed or lost. It further characterized reconstitution as an in rem proceeding, accentuating tha

...continue reading

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