Title
Republic vs. Dela Raga
Case
G.R. No. 161042
Decision Date
Aug 24, 2009
Heir seeks reconstitution of lost land title; RTC grants petition, affirmed by higher courts, citing sufficient evidence despite lack of Register of Deeds' report.
land title reconstitution
granddaughter
surviving heir
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 161042)

Factual Background

Respondent, Agripina dela Raga, was the granddaughter and the only surviving heir of the spouses Ignacio Serran and Catalina Laguit (Laguit). She lost her parents and her grandparents at an early age. Respondent was in possession of a seventy-nine thousand five hundred seventy (79,570) square meter parcel of land covered by OCT No. 49266, located in Barrio Dungon, Sison, Pangasinan.

Respondent was informed by a relative that Ignacio was the titled owner. She then went to the Registers of Deeds of Lingayen, San Fernando, and Manila to inquire about the property. In the Register of Deeds of Manila, respondent found Decree No. 196266, which declared the property in the names of Ignacio and Laguit, and also the spouses Felipe Serafica (Serafica) and Cornelia Serran (Cornelia).

Based on her discovery, respondent filed with the RTC a petition for reconstitution of OCT No. 49266 in the names of Ignacio, Laguit, Serafica, and Cornelia. In her petition dated 8 December 1998, respondent alleged that Ignacio was the titled owner, that her mother Aniceta Serran had inherited the property upon Ignacio’s death, and that when Aniceta also died, respondent inherited the same property. Respondent further asserted that she had been only six years old when her mother died, that she had never seen an owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. 49266, and that she later attempted to obtain such duplicate copy through the Register of Deeds. She stated that the relevant copy of OCT No. 49266 was presumed lost because the original file copy in the custody of the Register of Deeds was destroyed or deemed lost, and she sought to use Decree No. 196266 as the basis for reconstitution.

RTC Proceedings and Evidence

The RTC set the initial hearing on 18 August 1999. Respondent presented documentary evidence that included the petition, certificates of posting and publication, proof of service to government agencies, notices to adjacent owners, birth records to establish her maternal link, a certification from the Register of Deeds that OCT No. 49266 could not be found despite diligent efforts, and a tax receipt. Respondent also presented testimonial evidence, including her own testimony and that of Pascua Estibar.

In its decision dated 18 November 1999, the RTC granted the petition for reconstitution. The RTC found, among others, that respondent was the granddaughter of Ignacio Serran; that Ignacio owned the subject property; that the property was covered by OCT No. 49266; that the title was in the name of Ignacio; that the Register of Deeds’ copy of OCT No. 49266 had been destroyed during the war; and that respondent complied with the jurisdictional requirements for reconstitution.

The RTC’s findings were anchored on respondent’s evidentiary showing during the ex-parte reception of evidence before the Branch Clerk of Court. It recognized a documentary trail connecting Ignacio’s ownership to the land, including reference to a pre-war inventory of the Pangasinan Registry of Deeds marked as Exh. “O”, an entry showing O.C.T. No. 49266 to 49267 with a mutilated portion, and a certification (Exh. “P”) stating that OCT No. 49266 could not be found or located in the registry files and was therefore presumed lost or destroyed. The RTC also cited an application for registration of title filed by Ignacio on 3 October 1924 before the Court of First Instance for the Province of Pangasinan, with annexed survey and registration records, and its related judicial proceedings, which culminated in Decree No. 196266 issued on 28 November 1925 in undivided equal shares and covering a parcel corresponding to the area of the subject land.

The RTC likewise found support for ownership and the continued claim of respondent through proof of payment of taxes and testimony that respondent enjoyed the fruits of the land, together with respondent’s declarations that she had no knowledge of any mortgage and no knowledge of any other party claiming the property. After analyzing the documentary and testimonial evidence and finding them sufficient and substantial, and after finding compliance with jurisdictional requirements, the RTC granted the reconstitution of the lost title.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

The Republic of the Philippines appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its appellate brief dated 11 December 2000, the Republic argued that respondent failed to prove her relationship to Ignacio and that the Register of Deeds report was insufficient. It stressed that the record allegedly lacked proof establishing that respondent was the granddaughter of Ignacio. It further argued that respondent’s self-serving testimony could not suffice.

The Republic also contended that even if respondent established her interest, the RTC should have dismissed the petition because there was no showing that OCT No. 49266 remained valid and subsisting, meaning not superseded by any transfer certificate of title, at the time of loss and destruction. It pointed out that the Register of Deeds certification allegedly only stated that the original file copy could not be found despite diligent effort and was therefore presumed lost or destroyed. It argued that the certification fell short of the data required under LRA Circular No. 35, particularly the requirement that the Register of Deeds verify the status of the title at the time of alleged loss, determine whether another title existed covering the same property, and report whether any transactions existed that might adversely affect the title.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

In its decision dated 18 November 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in toto. It held that the Republic failed to present convincing evidence to discredit the RTC’s factual findings. It emphasized that factual findings of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court overlooked or ignored material facts or circumstances, or when sufficient weight and significance were not properly considered. It also cited the principle that the trial court’s evaluation of witness testimony deserves the highest respect because of its direct opportunity to observe the witnesses.

On the Republic’s argument regarding the purported insufficiency of the Register of Deeds certification, the Court of Appeals ruled that the claim was unsubstantial. It reasoned that the Register of Deeds had been notified, which served as a jurisdictional requirement, and that if it believed the subject OCT was flawed, it should have filed an opposition, which it did not. The Court of Appeals thus found no reversible error.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

In the petition dated 14 January 2004, the Republic raised a single issue: whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that respondent failed to prove that OCT No. 49266 was valid and subsisting at the time of its alleged loss or destruction. The Republic reiterated that reconstitution presupposes a valid and existing title at the time of loss. It maintained that the Register of Deeds certification did not provide the required verification contemplated by paragraph 12 of LRA Circular No. 35, which called for verification of the title’s status, whether another title existed, and the existence of adverse transactions. It argued further that the absence of an active opposition by the Register of Deeds could not relieve respondent of her burden.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that the petition was unmeritorious. The Court ruled that the sufficiency of the Register of Deeds’ report was not an indispensable requirement in reconstitution cases. It further ruled that the report may even be disregarded.

The Court relied on Puzon v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., explaining that LR[A] Circular No. 35 does not require a clearance. The circular requires reports from the Chief of the Clerks of Court Division and from the Register of Deeds after verification, submitted before the initial hearing. However, it was not mandatory that the reconstitution court wait indefinitely. The Court cited Section 16 of the same circular to show that if an order granting reconstitution was issued without awaiting the reports and verification due to delay or noncompliance, a motion to set aside or stay finality could be filed by the Land Registration Commissioner or the Register of Deeds through the Solicitor General or the provincial or city fiscal, but the reconstitution court was not divested of jurisdiction merely because it issued judgment without awaiting those reports. The Court thus concluded that the trial court was not affected by any alleged non-finality of reports and was not divested of jurisdiction on that basis.

The Court then applied **Section 15 of Republic Act No. 26, which provides that if, after hearing, the court finds that the documents presented are sufficient to warrant reconstitution, that the petitioner is the registered owner or has an interest, that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed, and that the description and boundaries substantially match those in the lost certificate, an order of reconstitution shall be issued. The Court pointed out that the RTC had already found respondent’s evidence sufficient and proper, found that the lost title was in force at the time of loss, and found compliance with the statutory requirements, thus making the issuance of the reconstitution order mandatory. In this connection, the Court cited Republic v. Casimiro, which stated that once the court, aft

...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