G.R. No. 239505 - Republic vs. Ciruelas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 239505)

Factual Background

The parcel of land at issue was registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-62328 in the name of Rogelio B. Ceruelas (later contended to be correctly spelled Ciruelas). On October 9, 2013, Rogelio executed an Affidavit of Loss stating that his owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328 had been kept in a cabinet in his bedroom but could not be located despite diligent search. The Affidavit of Loss was annotated on the title by the Register of Deeds for Batangas Province (Entry No. 564092, October 24, 2013). Rogelio likewise executed a special power of attorney (SPA) authorizing his brother, Dominador B. Ciruelas, to act on his behalf.

RTC Proceedings

Acting under the SPA, Dominador filed a Petition for the Issuance of a New Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-62328 and for Correction of the Family Name from Ceruelas to Ciruelas. The petition was uncontested and prosecuted ex parte. The RTC found no reason to doubt the claim of loss and, on March 28, 2014, rendered a Decision granting reconstitution. After the OSG sought reconsideration and after a Motion for Clarification by Dominador, the RTC amended the dispositive portion to expressly direct the Register of Deeds to issue a new owner’s duplicate and to correct the registered surname to ROGELIO B. CIRUELAS.

CA Proceedings

The Court of Appeals dismissed the OSG’s appeal and affirmed the RTC Amended Decision in a December 1, 2017 Decision. The CA held that (1) registration of the SPA was not a prerequisite to its validity, (2) competent evidence supported reconstitution of the lost title, and (3) permitting correction of the surname in the same proceeding avoided multiplicity of suits despite Section 108. The CA denied the OSG’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 22, 2018. The Republic then filed the present petition for review.

Issues Presented

The Supreme Court framed three principal issues: (1) whether Dominador, as attorney-in-fact, had authority to file the petition and to execute the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping; (2) whether the fact of loss of the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. T-62328 was established by the required quantum of proof; and (3) whether a certificate of title may be altered through the same proceeding for re-issuance of a lost duplicate rather than by a separate action under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529.

Petitioner's Contentions

The Republic of the Philippines through the OSG argued that the SPA was not registered as required by Section 64 of P.D. No. 1529, rendering Dominador without authority to institute the action or to sign the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping. The OSG also maintained that the Affidavit of Loss and Dominador’s testimony were hearsay and insufficient to prove loss, and that correction of the surname should have been pursued under Section 108 in a separate proceeding.

Respondent's Contentions

Dominador contended that the RTC and CA already resolved the OSG’s arguments and that the petition raised factual issues beyond the Supreme Court’s Rule 45 review. He maintained personal knowledge of the loss because he and Rogelio allegedly resided in the same house and shared the bedroom where the duplicate was kept, and he asserted that the SPA expressly authorized him to sign pleadings and the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping.

Court’s Holding on Agency Authority

The Court held that Dominador had authority to file the Section 109 petition and to execute the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping. The SPA created a conventional agency under Civil Code, Art. 1868, by which the agent’s acts for the principal have the same legal effect as if done by the principal. The Court construed Section 64 of P.D. No. 1529 as imposing a duty to register a power of attorney to protect third parties but not as a prerequisite to the SPA’s validity. Because the petition was published and the proceedings were public with no objections, the registration purpose was served and non-registration did not, by itself, invalidate the SPA. The Court further relied on Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court and precedent, including Heirs of Josefina Gabriel v. Cebrero, to hold that an agent authorized to prosecute an action may validly sign the certification against forum shopping.

Court’s Holding on Proof of Loss

The Court found that the fact of loss of the owner’s duplicate was not proven by preponderant evidence as required under Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529. The Court emphasized that Section 109 contains a notice requirement (the Affidavit of Loss filed with the Register of Deeds) and a distinct judicial replacement procedure that contemplates a full hearing where the petitioner must prove loss or theft by preponderance. The only evidence presented at trial were Rogelio’s Affidavit of Loss and Dominador’s testimony repeating its contents. The Court ruled both to be hearsay for impeachment of substantive proof: an affidavit is a public document yet remains hearsay unless the affiant testifies, and Dominador lacked demonstrated personal knowledge of the safekeeping and loss of the title. The Court cited precedent on the hearsay rule and the necessity of personal knowledge, including Republic v. Spouses Gimenez, Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lianga Bay and Community Multipurpose Cooperative, Inc., and Mancol v. Development Bank of the Philippines. The Court rejected Dominador’s post hoc claim of cohabitation with Rogelio because the record showed Dominador was married and contained no evidence of shared residence; bare allegation was not proof.

Court’s Ruling on Correction of Surname

The Court noted that judicial reconstitution under Section 109 reproduces the lost title in its original f

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 239505)

Parties and Procedural Posture

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to challenge the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 104582.
ROGELIO B. CIRUELAS was the registered owner of the parcel covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-62328 and was represented by his attorney-in-fact DOMINADOR B. CIRUELAS in the RTC proceedings.
The petition in the RTC sought judicial reconstitution and issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328 and correction of the registered surname from Ceruelas to Ciruelas.
The RTC granted the petition and issued an Amended Decision directing issuance of a new duplicate title and correction of the family name.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in its Decision dated December 1, 2017 and denied the OSG’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 22, 2018.
The Supreme Court granted the present Petition and reviewed the CA rulings for legal errors committed in applying Presidential Decree No. 1529 and rules of evidence.

Key Factual Allegations

ROGELIO B. CIRUELAS executed an Affidavit of Loss dated October 9, 2013 claiming the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328 was lost despite diligent search.
The Affidavit of Loss was registered and annotated on the TCT at the Register of Deeds for Batangas Province as Entry No. 564092 on October 24, 2013.
DOMINADOR B. CIRUELAS, as attorney-in-fact, filed the petition for judicial reconstitution on Rogelio’s behalf and testified ex parte regarding the loss and the misspelling of the family name.
The Registry of Deeds certified that a copy of TCT No. T-62328 registered under the name of Rogelio Ceruelas existed in their files.
The petition was published for three consecutive weeks and set for hearing with no oppositor appearing.

Relief Sought

The petition prayed that the lost owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328 be declared null and void.
The petition prayed for an order directing the Register of Deeds of Batangas Province to issue a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328 in the name of the registered owner.
The petition prayed for correction of the registered family name from Ceruelas to Ciruelas on the title.

Trial Court Ruling

The RTC found no reason to doubt the claim of loss and granted the petition to cancel the lost duplicate and direct issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy.
The RTC later issued an Amended Decision to include correction of Rogelio’s family name from CERUELAS to CIRUELAS in the reconstituted title.
The RTC denied the OSG’s motion for reconsideration and clarified the dispositive portion to include the surname correction.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC Decision and held that registration of the SPA was not a prerequisite to its validity and did not invalidate the agent’s authority.
The CA found that sufficient evidence supported reconstitution of the allegedly lost TCT No. T-62328.
The CA concluded that joining the correction of the family name with the judicial reconstitution served equity and avoided multiplicity of suits, notwithstanding the sequencing contemplated by Section 108 and Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529.

Issues Presented

Whether DOMINADOR B. CIRUELAS, as attorney-in-fact, had authority to file the petition and execute the V