Case Summary (G.R. No. 142284)
Factual Background
Respondent Severiana Gacho filed a petition for reconstitution of a lost certificate of title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City on June 21, 1995. She alleged ownership by purchase of a portion of Lot No. 1499 and traced the property’s adjudication to the 1929 registration case. She asserted that Decree No. 365835 had been issued for Lot No. 1499 in the name of Tirso Tumulak, married to Engracia Pongasi, but that the decree had not been salvaged from the last World War, while its existence appeared in cadastral records. She further alleged that an original certificate of title had been issued pursuant to the decree, but that the owner’s duplicate had been lost during the last World War and the duplicate copy on file with the Register of Deeds had also been lost or destroyed, as allegedly evidenced by a certification.
Respondent claimed that no co-owner’s copy had been issued to any co-owner, mortgagee, or lessee, and that no involuntary document affecting the land was registered or pending registration. She stated that the property had not been the subject of prior court litigation. Respondent’s purpose in reconstitution was tied to her purchase and her inability to obtain a certificate of title in her name absent prior reconstitution.
RTC Proceedings and Evidence Presented
The RTC initially scheduled the hearing for February 12, 1996. Notices of hearing were published in the Official Gazette and posted in conspicuous places, and relevant agencies were furnished copies of the notice. After the jurisdictional facts were established, the Branch Clerk of Court received the evidence in an ex-parte hearing.
Respondent testified that she purchased a portion of Lot No. 1499 from Aguinaldo and Restituto Tumulak Perez, legal heirs of the late Concepcion Tumulak, based on a Deed of Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs with Sale executed on February 12, 1979. Respondent stated that Concepcion Tumulak was the only daughter of Tirso Tumulak and Engracia Pongasi, both deceased, decreed owners by virtue of the 1929 decision. She claimed the area acquired was 901 square meters from Lot No. 1499, and that she was in possession of the portion purchased. She also stated that there was no adverse claimant and that the lot had not been the subject of court litigation. She did not claim knowledge of issuance of any co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate, nor of any registered document affecting the lot.
Respondent submitted documentary bases for reconstitution, namely: a Xerox copy of the March 31, 1929 decision (Exhibit “I”), an index of decrees (Exhibit “J”), the Deed of Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs with Sale (Exhibit “K”), an affidavit of Conchita Oyao (Exhibit “L”), a certification from the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City (Exhibit “M”), a sketch plan (Exhibit “N”), and certified copies of the technical description (Exhibit “N-1”).
In addition, on January 13, 1997, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) submitted a report, stating that Decree No. 365835 was issued for Lot No. 1499 on October 28, 1929 in Cadastral Case No. 17, with GLRO Cad. Record No. 946; that the decree copy was no longer available to the authority; and that the plan and technical description were verified correct and had been approved under an LRA plan reference. The report recommended that if the petition were granted, the reconstituted title, as an original certificate, should be made subject to specified liens in favor of the National Government and a surveying corporation, and that no certificate of title covering the same parcel should exist in the Register of Deeds.
RTC Decision
On March 11, 1997, the RTC granted the petition. It found that the allegations had been sufficiently established and directed the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to reconstitute the title for Lot No. 1499 in the name of Tirso Tumulak, married to Engracia Pongasi, with strict conformity to the technical description of the lot (Exhibit “N-2”).
Appeal and Issues Raised
The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed, contending that the RTC erred in granting reconstitution based on documents allegedly non-acceptable and insufficient under RA 26. On February 29, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC decision.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that RA 26 enumerated sources of reconstitution in an order, and that appellant’s argument overlooked that the petition had presented the decision in Exp. Cad. No. 17, a certified true copy of which was admitted as Exhibit “I”, and that the cadastral record showing the annotation for Decree No. 365835 was marked as Exhibit “J” and “J-1.” The Court of Appeals treated the authenticity and due execution of Exhibits “I” and “J” as unchallenged. It also held that there was sufficient evidence of how ownership was transferred through the sale by heirs of Concepcion Tumulak and that the reconstitution was supported, including the Register of Deeds certification (Exhibit “M”) on the alleged loss during the last World War.
The Republic maintained two principal errors before the Supreme Court: first, that the reconstitution was granted on the basis of a Xerox copy of a purported decision and on other documents that allegedly did not qualify as acceptable sources under RA 26; and second, that the petition was granted despite an alleged dearth of evidence on the previous issuance of the lost certificate of title.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision, and entered judgment denying the petition for reconstitution.
The Court began by restating that Section 2 of RA 26 lists the acceptable sources for reconstitution, in the following order: the owner’s duplicate, the co-owner’s/mortgagee’s/lessee’s duplicate, a certified copy of the certificate previously issued by the Register of Deeds or legal custodian, an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, a registered document showing that the original property had been mortgaged, leased, or encumbered (or an authenticated copy thereof), and any other document deemed by the court sufficient and proper under Section 2(f). The Supreme Court clarified that the trial court and the Court of Appeals relied on the one-page, two-liner March 31, 1929 decision and an index of decrees indicating issuance of Decree No. 365835.
The Court held that these documents would not naturally fall within Sections 2(a) to (e), but might, at most, be considered under Section 2(f) as “any other document.” Even so, the Court found them insufficient.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court closely examined the March 31, 1929 decision reproduced verbatim in the records. It consisted only of an order stating: “Lote No. 1499. A favor de Tirso Tumulak, casado con Engrasia Pongasi,” followed by the signature of an auxiliary judge and a certification by a geodetic engineer as a “certified true copy.” The Court found that the Geodetic Engineer’s certification did not establish probative value because the prosecution of evidentiary requirements had not been satisfied. In particular, the Court invoked Section 7, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which allows proof of the contents of an original document in the custody of a public officer by a certified copy issued by that public officer in custody. Since the record did not establish that the Geodetic Engineer was the public officer who had custody of the original decision, the Court ruled that the copy had no probative value.
The Supreme Court also evaluated the index of decree. The Court noted that the name of the applicant and the date of issuance of the decree were illegible. Although Decree No. 365835 was said to exist in the record book of cadastral lots, the LRA report did not state the number of the original certificate of title, which the Court treated as insufficient to support reconstitution. The Court further found that the deed of extrajudicial declaration of heirs with sale executed on February 12, 1979 did not mention the certificate of title number, but referred only to Tax Declaration No. 00393.
Relying on Tahanan Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the absence of any document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title and the date when it was issued did not warrant granting a petition for reconstitution. The Court rejected respondent’s argument that the 1929 decision necessarily validated issuance of the certificate of title, because the 1929 decision itself lacked probative value as a valid source for reconstitution.
The Court then addressed respondent’s additional documents: the approved plan, technical description, and the Register of Deeds certification of loss. The Court treated these materials not as the sources contemplated by Section 2(f), but as merely supplementary attachments accompanying the petition for transmittal to the Land Registration Authority. To support this, the Court cited Heirs of Felicidad Dizon vs. Discaya, which explained that “other documents” under Section 2(f) did not encompass the plan and technical description as independent sources for proving the existence of the lost certificate, because LRC Circular No. 35 enumerated those items as additional documents that must accompany the petition to the Commission, not as the “other documents” intended under Section 3(f) or sufficient basis under Section 2(f).
The Court further examined the affidavit of Conchita Oyao. It held that the affidavit was inadmissible under the hearsay rule because Oyao was not presented in court to testify. Even assuming admissibility, the Court found the affidavit unhelpful because respondent did not explain why Oyao, and not the alleged possessor (Aguinaldo or Restituto), would be the one to te
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 142284)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, sought review on certiorari to reverse the Court of Appeals decision dated February 29, 2000 in CA-G.R. CV No. 56966.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City decision granting reconstitution of title for Lot No. 1499 in the name of Tirso Tumulak, married to Engracia Pongasi.
- The trial court’s reconstitution case originated from a petition filed by respondent Severiana Gacho before the RTC, Lapu-Lapu City.
- The petition proceeded after the trial court set an initial hearing and required publication, posting, and notice to government offices and the Office of the Solicitor General.
- The Court of Appeals disposed of the Republic’s appeal as lacking merit, while the Supreme Court ultimately reversed and denied the petition for reconstitution.
Key Factual Allegations
- Respondent Severiana Gacho alleged she was the owner by purchase of a portion of Lot No. 1499 of the Opon Cadastre located in Barangay Babag, Lapu-Lapu City, with an area of five thousand four hundred nine square meters, more or less, and that she acquired nine hundred one square meters from that lot.
- She alleged that Lot No. 1499 had been adjudged to Tirso Tumulak, married to Engracia Pongasi, by a decision dated March 31, 1929 in Exp. Cad. No. 17, and that a decree was issued pursuant thereto, with its existence appearing in cadastral records.
- She alleged Decree No. 365835 was issued for Lot No. 1499 and that the owner’s duplicate of the original certificate of title was lost during the last World War, while the record copy at the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City was likewise lost or destroyed.
- She asserted no adverse claimant existed, the lot was not subject of court litigation, and no involuntary document affecting the property had ever been registered or was pending registration.
- She relied on a Deed of Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs with Sale dated February 12, 1979, through which heirs of Concepcion Tumulak allegedly sold the 901 square meters portion to her.
- She presented a sketch plan, a technical description, and supporting certifications, and she sought reconstitution because she could not obtain title in her name without first reconstituting the lost original title.
Trial Court Proceedings
- The trial court scheduled the initial hearing and later proceeded after jurisdictional facts for reconstitution were established through publication in the Official Gazette, posting, and furnishing notices to the Register of Deeds, the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority, the Director of the Bureau of Lands, and the Office of the Solicitor General.
- After jurisdictional facts were established, the branch clerk of court received evidence for the respondent in an ex-parte hearing.
- Respondent Gacho testified that she purchased from the heirs of Concepcion Tumulak and that the registered owners had acquired the lot through the 1929 adjudication.
- She testified she possessed the portion she purchased, claimed there were no adverse claimants, and stated she lacked knowledge of co-owner, mortgagee, or lessee duplicate copies and of any registered encumbrance.
- She offered documents as bases for reconstitution, including a xerox copy of the 1929 decision (Exhibit “I”), an index of decrees (Exhibit “J”), the 1979 deed of heirs with sale (Exhibit “K”), a Register of Deeds certification (Exhibit “M”), a sketch plan (Exhibit “N”), and a certified xerox copy of the technical description (Exhibit “N-1”).
- The Land Registration Authority submitted a report verifying the plan and technical description and noting that Decree No. 365835 existed in cadastral records but its copy was no longer available in the authority, and it recommended that any granted reconstituted title be subject to specified liens.
CA Review and Ruling
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, reasoning that R.A. No. 26 allows multiple sources for reconstitution in a specified order, including “any other document” under Section 2(f).
- It held that while the listed documents were not within Sections 2(a) to (e), they could be considered under Section 2(f) as sufficient and proper bases for reconstitution.
- The Court of Appeals treated the authenticity and due execution of Exhibits “I” and “J” as not questioned, and it found sufficient evidence of ownership transfer through the heirs’ sale to respondent.
- It accepted a certification from the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City that the original certificate was lost or destroyed during the last Global War.
- The Republic’s position was rejected by the CA, which found ample basis to sustain reconstitution.
Issues Raised by Republic
- The Republic contended that the RTC and CA erred in granting reconstitution based on sources the Republic considered non-acceptable and insufficient under R.A. No. 26, including a xerox copy of the 1929 “decision,” an index of decrees, sketch plan, certifications, technical description, and deed of sale.
- The Republic also contended that there was a dearth of evidence on the previous issuance of the lost certificate of title, and thus reconstitution should not have been granted.
- In its memorandum, the Republic further argued that no decree of registration supporting issuance of a certificate of title had been presented and that the 1929 decision cou