Title
Heirs of Lozano vs. Register of Deeds, Lingayen, Pangasi
Case
G.R. No. 166899
Decision Date
Aug 10, 2006
Petition for reconstitution of TCT denied; unsigned owner's duplicate deemed insufficient, strict compliance with RA 26 required.
reconstitution of title certificate
authentication
discrepancies
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166899)

Factual Background

On August 7, 1998, Pastora R. Lozano filed with the RTC a petition for reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. 17100, asserting that the office file copy was lost or destroyed. She asked the court to direct the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan to reconstitute the office file based on the technical description embodied in her owner’s duplicate copy of the title, upon payment of legal fees, and after due notice, publication, and hearing.

The RTC issued an Order dated August 12, 1998 scheduling the initial hearing for December 2, 1998. During that date, the petitioner did not appear. There was also no opposition, although the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor appeared specially for the Republic. The RTC reset the hearing to January 27, 1999.

On January 11, 1999, the RTC learned that its August 12, 1998 Order had not been published in a newspaper of general circulation in Pangasinan, or in the Official Gazette, as mandated by law. The scheduled hearing on January 27, 1999 was therefore cancelled. On the same day, the RTC issued another Order, setting the petition for initial hearing on July 8, 1999 at 8:30 a.m., enjoining all interested persons to appear and show cause.

On March 27, 1999, Pastora Lozano died intestate. Her heirs sought substitution as petitioners, supported by a special power of attorney appointing German R. Lozano as representative. When the case was called on July 8, 1999, the petitioners failed to prove that the RTC’s January 11, 1999 Order had been posted at the main entrance of the Provincial Capitol, at the Office of the Register of Deeds, and at the Municipal Hall of Villasis, Pangasinan. Despite this lack of proof, the RTC issued an Order of General Default, treating the jurisdictional requirements as established.

During subsequent proceedings, German Lozano testified on October 19, 1999. The heirs reserved the right to submit a deed executed by Sixto Dominguez purportedly transferring the property to the spouses Marciano Racadio and Emiliana Galima. That deed was not introduced. Instead, the heirs submitted a certificate from the Acting Register of Deeds stating that the original file copy of the deed could not be located and was presumed lost or destroyed because the record was lost.

The heirs presented evidence that the spouses Marciano Racadio and Emiliana Galima were the registered owners of the property under TCT No. 17100, that upon their demise their daughter Pastora Lozano became the sole heir, and that Pastora Lozano had entrusted her owner’s duplicate to German Lozano for safekeeping since sometime in 1957, when she left Pangasinan and went to Manila. The heirs stated that they were not fully aware how the spouses acquired the property, although Pastora used to tell German that the property came from Sixto Dominguez. They also showed that the property was declared for taxation in 1998 in the name of Marciano Racadio under Tax Declaration No. 004-00250, and that realty taxes for 1998–1999 were paid. They presented a technical description prepared by a surveyor on July 9, 1999.

On cross-examination, German Lozano admitted material details about the owner’s duplicate. He acknowledged that the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 17100 did not contain the signature of the Register of Deeds, and that the title number was handwritten. When the heirs formally offered documents, the RTC admitted them “for whatever they might be worth.”

Trial Court Proceedings

After the presentation of testimony and documentary submissions, the RTC rendered judgment on January 26, 2000, granting the petition for reconstitution. The RTC directed the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the office file copy of TCT No. 17100 based on the owner’s duplicate and the technical description reflected therein, subject to annotations of subsisting rights or interests not duly noted in the proceedings, and subject to the rights of the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority under a Land Registration Commission Circular No. 35 dated June 13, 1983.

In issuing its ruling, the RTC considered the documentary and parole evidence “adequate and sufficiently persuasive” to warrant reconstitution.

The Appeal and the Parties’ Contentions

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the Court of Appeals. The OSG assigned a single error: that the RTC erred in ordering reconstitution on the basis of an unauthenticated owner’s duplicate copy. The OSG argued that the heirs failed to introduce the owner’s duplicate bearing the signature of the Register of Deeds, and that because genuineness and due execution were not established, reconstitution could not properly be granted.

In response, the heirs maintained that the owner’s duplicate copy was not subject to the same authentication requirements because it was the duplicate original within Rule 130, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, and that it was, in their view, a public document admissible without further proof of due execution or genuineness. They further argued that no private party opposed the petition. They added that an oppositor, if any, would have to prove that the owner’s duplicate presented was not the actual duplicate.

Appellate Ruling of the Court of Appeals

By Decision dated August 27, 2004, the Court of Appeals granted the appeal and annulled the RTC’s reconstitution order. The Court of Appeals emphasized that the owner’s duplicate copy presented by the heirs was not duly signed by the Register of Deeds. It held that the defect was not clarified or justified.

The Court of Appeals relied on Section 41 of Act No. 496, reproducing the statutory mechanism by which the Register of Deeds must transcribe the decree into a Registration Book and make the original certificate of title bear the Register of Deeds’ signature and seal, while issuing an owner’s duplicate as an exact duplicate of the original, including the seal, and delivering it with the proper designation. The appellate court reasoned that the absence of the Register of Deeds’ signature rendered the owner’s duplicate inherently flawed. It characterized such a document as of dubious origin and treated it as not competent to support reconstitution.

The Court of Appeals also noted additional irregularities, including the manner by which the title number was written, which it found should have alerted the RTC to the need for greater circumspection.

On September 28, 2004, the Court of Appeals denied the heirs’ motion for reconsideration.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

The heirs filed the present petition for review on certiorari, assailing the appellate court’s ruling. They argued that the RTC did not err in ordering reconstitution based on an unauthenticated duplicate because the lack of Register of Deeds signature was merely an irregularity and did not render the document void. They also invoked the idea that the validity of a Torrens title could be raised only in an action specifically intended to impugn it.

The Supreme Court framed the sole issue as whether the owner’s duplicate copy without the signature of the Register of Deeds was a competent source for reconstituting the original copy of the title certificate.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court denied the petition and sustained the Court of Appeals. The Court first reiterated that in reconstitution cases under Republic Act No. 26, the statutory requirements on notice, including posting, and publication where required, are indispensable and must be strictly complied with to safeguard against spurious and unfounded land ownership claims. It referred to controlling jurisprudence interpreting Rep. Act No. 26 as requiring vigilant and exact compliance.

Applying these principles to the record, the Court found that petitioners failed to cause the posting of the RTC Order dated January 11, 1999 at the main entrance of the Provincial Capitol of Lingayen and at the Municipal Hall of Villasis, and that this failure meant the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution. It examined the evidence proffered to prove posting, particularly the Sheriff’s Return. The Sheriff’s Return described posting of the copies of the Order and Petition and its Annexes in four locations, but it referred to the RTC’s August 12, 1998 Order rather than the January 11, 1999 Order. The Court thus concluded that the sheriff failed to post the correct order as required.

The Court also emphasized that the petitioners, under Rep. Act No. 26, bore the burden to prove the execution or existence of the original copy of the TCT that was allegedly lost or destroyed and to prove its contents. It discussed the list of sources contemplated by the Act, including the owner’s duplicate, co-owner’s duplicate, certified copies previously issued by the Register of Deeds or legal custodian, and relevant deed or documents on file with the Register of Deeds, or authenticated copies. Petitioners were therefore required to present documents and proof that could properly serve as a basis for reconstitution.

Turning to the core evidentiary defect, the Supreme Court relied on Section 41 of Act No. 496 and concluded that any title issued by the Register of Deeds, including the original copy on file and the owner’s duplicate, must bear the signature of the Register of Deeds. The owner’s duplicate therefore had to be authentic and not spurious.

In this case, the Court held that the heirs’ owner’s duplicate did not meet this standard. It was not signed by the Register of Deeds and, on its face, did not contain even the title number in the proper manner. The record indicated that after the words “Certifico de Transferencio De Titulo No.” there was a blank space where the title number should have been typewritten. Petitioners did not explain why the owner’s duplicate lacked the signature and proper designation. For this reason, the Court agreed with the Court of Ap

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms