I. Action for Damages
WON the filing of an action for reconveyance has
PINO v. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: The decision of the CA affirming in toto the
decision of the RTC of Echague, Isabela is now being
assailed in the instant petition for certiorari.
Lot 6 was acquired by the spouses Juan Gaffud and
Rafaela Donato. Juan Gaffud died in 1936. On Jan. 11,
1938, Lot 6 was originally registered (OTC No. 4340) in
the Registration Book of the Office of the RD in the
names of Rafaela, Raymundo and Cicero Gaffud (sons of
spouses) as co-owners. The said lot was sold to Rafaela
Donato through a Deed of Transfer which cancelled OTC
NO. 4340 and in lieu thereof a TCT was issued in the
name of Rafaela alone.
On Feb. 1967, Rafaela sold a portion of Lot 6 in favor in
Fortunato Pascua. The aforesaid sale caused the
subdivision of the said lot into Lot-6-A and Lot-6-B. Upon
registration of said sale in favor of Pascua, TCT No. T-
32683 was issued in the name of Rafaela Donato on
March 2, 1967 covering the land designated as Lot 6-B.
On Jun. 10, 1970, Rafaela Donato sold to petitioner
Felicisima Pino said Lot-6-B as evidenced by the Deed of
Absolute Sale which was duly notarized. Rafaela
undertook to register said Deed with the RD of Isabela
and on July 13, 1970, the sale was inscribed therein and
a TCT was issued in the name of Felicisima Pino.
On Sept. 1980, Cicero Gaffud died survived by his wife
Demetrian and sons Romulo and Adolfo, private
respondents herein.
On March 9, 1982, private respondents filed a complaint
for nullity of sale and reconveyance against petitioner —
Felicisima Pino. (During the pendency of the case before
the trial court, Rafaela Donato, who was not a party to
the case, died on November her 26, 1982.)
The RTC ruled and this was sustained by respondent CA
that petitioner Pino is not a purchaser in good faith, so
(a) the Deed of Absolute Sale made by Rafaela in favor of
Pino null and void insofar as the shares of Cicero and
Raymundo are concerned, (b) cancellation of TCT No.
49380 in the name of Pino and (c) reconvey one-half of
Lot-6-B to plaintiffs within 10 days.
ISSUE:
1. WON Felicisima Pino is a purchaser in good faith
2.
already prescribed
HELD:
1. The rule applicable to this controversy is well-settled.
Where the certificate of title is in the name of the vendor
when the land is sold, the vendee for value has the right
to rely on what appears on the certificate of title. In the
absence of anything to excite or arouse suspicion, said
vendee is under no obligation to look beyond the
certificate and investigate the title of the vendor
appearing on the face of said certificate.
In the case at bar, the evidence on record discloses that
when petitioner purchased the subject property on June
10, 1970, the title was in the name of her vendor Rafaela
Donato alone.
There was no allegation, and much less any evidence,
that the transfer of the subject property from the original
owners (Rafaela, Cicero and Raymundo) to Rafaela
Donato was fraudulent.
3. TCT No. T-32683 was issued in the name of Rafaela
Donato on March 2, 1967. The present action for
reconveyance was filed only on March 9, 1982. Clearly
then, the action has already prescribed because it was
filed fifteen (15) years after the issuance of TCT No. T-
32683
If an action for reconveyance based on constructive trust
cannot reach an innocent purchaser for value, the
remedy of the defrauded party is to bring an action for
damages against those who caused the fraud or were
instrumental in depriving him of the property. And it is
now well-settled that such action prescribes in ten years
from the issuance of the Torrens Title over the property.
II. Action for Reversion
REPUBLIC VS. CA AND ALPUERTO
Facts:
Alpuerto filed for the reopening of cadastral
proceedings. The court adjudicated the subject land to
him and thereafter OCT was issued in his favor, and
subsequently portions of land were transferred to
various persons.
Prior thereto however, the provincial fiscal filed
motion for reconsideration on the ground that the
decision was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation
and deceit since it was improperly reopened despite the
absence of the necessary conditions.
The OSG filed also for an annulment,
cancellation of titles and for reversion of lots on the
ground that the decision of the court adjudicating the
land to Alpuerto and the subsequent transfers were all
null and void and without legal effect because the court
had no jurisdiction to allocate the inalienable land since
it is part of the timber and mineral land.
The respondents contended that the action is
barred by a prior judgment and that the court lacks
jurisdiction over the nature of the action or suit.
Issue: W/N the certificate of title may be cancelled.
Held: Yes. It is void at law since the officer who issued
had no authority to do so.
The land in question is not within the jurisdiction of the
Director of Lands but of the Director of Forestry. The
same law explicitly states that timber and mineral lands
shall be governed by special laws. And the Forestry Law
now vests in the Director of Forest Development the
jurisdiction and authority over forest or timberland.
The cancellation may be pursued through an ordinary
action therefor. This action cannot be barred by the prior
judgment of the land registration court, since the said
court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. And if
there was no such jurisdiction, then the principle of res
judicata does not apply.
The State may still seek the can¬cellation of the title
issued to Perpetuo Alpuerto and his successors-in-
interest pursuant to Section 101 of the Public Land Act.
Such title has not become indefeasible, for prescription
cannot be invoked against the State. (Republic vs.
Animas, supra)
FUGURACION V. LIBI
Facts:
In 1948, the Cebu City government expropriated a parcel
of land of Galileo Figuracion to be turned into a portion
of N. Escario Street.
In 1989, the Sangguniang Panglungsod approved the
reconveyance of the unused portion of the lot to the
successor-in-interest, Isagani Figuracion. A new TCT was
issued to Isagani Figuracion.
The Spouses Libi were owners of an adjacent lot and has
been using the said lot as access to the road. They
refused to vacate the lot despite demand. The lower
court ordered that the Spouses Libi remove the fence
they have erected on the said lot.
The Spouses Libi filed for easement, then amended their
complaint and shifted cause of action to one for the
annulment of sale to Figuracion with damages.
Issue:
WON the action by the Spouses Libi to annul the
reconveyance of the lot to Figuracion is proper.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the Spouses Libi were not the real-
parties-in-interest to annul the TCT of Figuracion, since
they are not themselves claiming title to or possession of
the lot. Libi alleged that they bought the adjacent lot in
the belief that they had an outlet to N. Escario Street
through the lot owned by the Cebu City government.
Clearly, they have no interest in the title of the lot.
Reversion is a proceeding by which the State seeks the
return of lands of the public domain through the
cancellation of private title erroneously or fraudulently
issued over it. The action should be in the name of the
State. Thus, Spouses Libi cannot be considered the
proper parties therein.
The Spouses’ sole interest is the use of the property as
access to N. Escaro Street. Such interest is tangential to
any issue regarding ownership or possession of the
property. Hence, it is not sufficient to vest in them the
legal standing to sue for reversion of the property. They
should have maintained the action for easement.
The wisdom and intent of the City Council to recognize
the right of Isagani Figuracion to repurchase the lot
cannot be gainsaid. The City of Cebu has the power and
authority to sell the expropriated property that is no
longer needed for that purpose for which it was
intended.
The Spouses Libi not only lacked the legal personality but
also have no legal basis to challenge the reconveyance.
III. Assurance Fund
Section 93. Contribution to Assurance Fund. Upon the
entry of a certificate of title in the name of the registered
owner, and also upon the original registration on the
certificate of title of a building or other improvements on
the land covered by said certificate, as well as upon the
entry of a certificate pursuant to any subsequent transfer
of registered land, there shall be paid to the Register of
Deeds one-fourth of one per cent of the assessed value
of the real estate on the basis of the last assessment for
taxation purposes, as contribution to the Assurance
Fund. Where the land involved has not yet been assessed
for taxation, its value for purposes of this decree shall be
determined by the sworn declaration of two
disinterested persons to the effect that the value fixed by
them is to their knowledge, a fair valuation.
Nothing in this section shall in any way preclude the
court from increasing the valuation of the property
should it appear during the hearing that the value stated
is too small.
Section 94. Custody and investment of fund. All money
received by the Register of Deeds under the preceding
section shall be paid to the National Treasurer. He shall
keep this money in an Assurance Fund which may be
invested in the manner and form authorized by law, and
shall report annually to the Commissioner of the Budget
the condition and income thereof.
The income of the Assurance Fund shall be added to the
principal until said fund amounts to five hundred
thousand pesos, in which event the excess income from
investments as well as from the collections of such fund
shall be paid into the National Treasury to the account of
the Assurance Fund.
Section 95. Action for compensation from funds. A
person who, without negligence on his part, sustains loss
or damage, or is deprived of land or any estate or interest
therein in consequence of the bringing of the land under
the operation of the Torrens system of arising after
original registration of land, through fraud or in
consequence of any error, omission, mistake or
misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or
memorandum in the registration book, and who by the
provisions of this Decree is barred or otherwise
precluded under the provision of any law from bringing
an action for the recovery of such land or the estate or
interest therein, may bring an action in any court of
competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages to be
paid out of the Assurance Fund.
Section 96. Against whom action filed. If such action is
brought to recover for loss or damage or for deprivation
of land or of any estate or interest therein arising wholly
through fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or
misfeasance of the court personnel, Register of Deeds,
his deputy, or other employees of the Registry in the
performance of their respective duties, the action shall
be brought against the Register of Deeds of the province
or city where the land is situated and the National
Treasurer as defendants. But if such action is brought to
recover for loss or damage or for deprivation of land or
of any interest therein arising through fraud, negligence,
omission, mistake or misfeasance of person other than
court personnel, the Register of Deeds, his deputy or
other employees of the Registry, such action shall be
brought against the Register of Deeds, the National
Treasurer and other person or persons, as co-
defendants. It shall be the duty of the Solicitor General in
person or by representative to appear and to defend all
such suits with the aid of the fiscal of the province or city
where the land lies: Provided, however, that nothing in
this Decree shall be construed to deprive the plaintiff of
any right of action which he may have against any person
for such loss or damage or deprivation without joining
the National Treasurer as party defendant. In every
action filed against the Assurance Fund, the court shall
consider the report of the Commissioner of Land
Registration.
Section 97. Judgment, how satisfied. If there are
defendants other than the National Treasurer and the
Register of Deeds and judgment is entered for the
plaintiff and against the National Treasury, the Register
of Deeds and any of the other defendants, execution
shall first issue against such defendants other than the
National and the Register of Deeds. If the execution is
returned unsatisfied in whole or in part, and the officer
returning the same certificates that the amount due
cannot be collected from the land or personal property
of such other defendants, only then shall the court, upon
proper showing, order the amount of the execution and
costs, or so much thereof as remains unpaid, to be paid
by the National treasurer out of the Assurance Fund. In
an action under this Decree, the plaintiff cannot recover
as compensation more than the fair market value of the
land at the time he suffered the loss, damage, or
deprivation thereof.
Section 98. General Fund when liable. If at any time the
Assurance Fund is not sufficient to satisfy such judgment,
the National Treasurer shall make up for the deficiency
from any funds available in the treasury not otherwise
appropriated.
Section 99. Subrogation of government to plaintiff's
rights. In every case where payment has been made by
the National Treasurer in accordance with the provisions
of this Decree, the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines shall be subrogated to the rights of the
plaintiff against any other parties or securities. The
National Treasurer shall enforce said rights and the
amount recovered shall be paid to the account of the
Assurance Fund.
Section 100. Register of Deeds as party in interest. When
it appears that the Assurance Fund may be liable for
damages that may be incurred due to the unlawful or
erroneous issuance of a certificate of title, the Register
of Deeds concerned shall be deemed a proper party in
interest who shall, upon authority of the Commissioner
of Land Registration, file the necessary action in court to
annul or amend the title.
The court may order the Register of Deeds to amend or
cancel a certificate of title or to do any other act as may
be just and equitable.
Section 101. Losses not recoverable. The Assurance Fund
shall not be liable for any loss, damage or deprivation
caused or occasioned by a breach of trust, whether
express, implied or constructive or by any mistake in the
resurveyed or subdivision of registered land resulting in
the expansion of area in the certificate of title.
Section 102. Limitation of Action. Any action for
compensation against the Assurance Fund by reason of
any loss, damage or deprivation of land or any interest
therein shall be instituted within a period of six years
from the time the right to bring such action first
occurred: Provided, That the right of action herein
provided shall survive to the legal representative of the
person sustaining loss or damage, unless barred in his
lifetime; and Provided, further, That if at the time such
right of action first accrued the person entitled to bring
such action was a minor or insane or imprisoned, or
otherwise under legal disability, such person or anyone
claiming from, by or under him may bring the proper
action at any time within two years after such disability
has been removed, notwithstanding the expiration of the
original period of six years first above provided.
SPS. DE GUZMAN v. NATIONAL TREASURER
SYNOPSIS
On November 20, 1985, petitioner spouses Francisco and
Amparo de Guzman purchased a real property from a
couple who posed as the owners thereof. Later, the real
Urlan and Asuncion Milambiling surfaced, identified
themselves as the real owners of the subject property
and brought suit for declaration of nullity of sale and title
with damages. The court ruled in favor of spouses
Milambiling. This decision was affirmed by both the
Court of Appeals and this Court, prompting petitioners to
file an action for damages against the Assurance Fund.
The Regional Trial Court adjudged the latter liable. On
appeal, this decision was reversed by the Court of
Appeals. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners' claim is not supported by the purpose for
which the Assurance Fund was established. The
Assurance Fund is intended to relieve innocent persons
from the harshness of the doctrine that a certificate is
conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title to land.
Petitioners did not suffer any prejudice because of the
operation of this doctrine. On the contrary, petitioners
sought to avail of the benefits of the Torrens System by
registering the property in their name. Unfortunately for
petitioners, the original owners were able to judicially
recover the property from them. That petitioners
eventually lost the property to the original owners,
however, did not entitle them to compensation under
the Assurance Fund.
SYLLABUS
CIVIL LAW; PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE;
DAMAGES; ASSURANCE FUND; PURPOSE OF ASSURANCE
FUND IS TO RELIEVE INNOCENT PERSONS FROM THE
HARSHNESS OF THE DOCTRINE THAT A CERTIFICATE IS
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF AN INDEFEASIBLE TITLE TO
LAND; INSTANCES WHEN THE ASSURANCE FUND MAY BE
HELD LIABLE; CASE AT BAR. — Section 95 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, provides: SEC. 95. Action for
compensation from funds. — A person who, without
negligence on his part, sustains loss or damage, or is
deprived of land or any estate or interest therein in
consequence of the bringing of the land under the
operation of the Torrens system or arising after original
registration of land, through fraud or in consequence of
any error, omission, mistake or misdescription in any
certificate of title or in any entry or memorandum in the
registration book, and who by the provisions of this
Decree is barred or otherwise precluded under the
provision of any law from bringing an action for the
recovery of such land or the estate or interest therein,
may bring an action in any court of competent
jurisdiction for the recovery of damage to be paid out of
the Assurance Fund. Petitioners have not alleged that the
loss or damage they sustained was "through any
omission, mistake or malfeasance of the court personnel,
or the Registrar of Deeds, his deputy, or other employees
of the Registry in the performance of their respective
duties." Moreover, petitioners were negligent in not
ascertaining whether the impostors who executed a
deed of sale in their (petitioner's) favor were really the
owners of the property. They were not deprived of their
land "as a consequence of the bringing of [the] land or
interest therein under the provisions of the Property
Registration Decree." Neither was the deprivation due to
"the registration by any other person as owner of such
land," or "by mistake, omission or misdescription in any
certificate or owner's duplicate, or in any entry or
memorandum in the register or other official book or by
any cancellation." Petitioners' claim is not supported by
the purpose for which the Assurance Fund was
established. The Assurance Fund is intended to relieve
innocent persons from the harshness of the doctrine that
a certificate is conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title
to land. Petitioners did not suffer any prejudice because
of the operation of this doctrine. On the contrary,
petitioners sought to avail of the benefits of the Torrens
System by registering the property in their name.
Unfortunately for petitioners, the original owners were
able to judicially recover the property from them. That
petitioners eventually lost the property to the original
owners, however, does not entitle them to
compensation under the Assurance Fund. While we
commiserate with petitioners, who appear to be victims
of unscrupulous scoundrels, we cannot sanction
compensation that is not within the law's contemplation.
As we said in Treasurer of the Philippines vs. Court of
Appeals, the Government is not an insurer of the unwary
citizen's property against the chicanery of scoundrels.
Petitioners' recourse is not against the Assurance Fund,
as the Court of Appeals pointed out, but against the
rogues who duped them.
IV. Quieting of Title
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real
property or any interest therein, by reason of any
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and
in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable,
and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be
brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from
being cast upon title to real property or any interest
therein.
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title
to, or interest in the real property which is the subject
matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said
property.
Art. 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or
remove a cloud therefrom when the contract,
instrument or other obligation has been extinguished or
has terminated, or has been barred by extinctive
prescription.
Art. 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all
benefits he may have received from the latter, or
reimburse him for expenses that may have redounded to
the plaintiff's benefit.
Art. 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting
of title are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in
conflict with this Code.
Art. 481. The procedure for the quieting of title or the
removal of a cloud therefrom shall be governed by such
rules of court as the Supreme Court shall promulgated.
RULE 63
Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
Section 1. Who may file petition. — Any person
interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute,
executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation may, before breach or violation
thereof bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial
Court to determine any question of construction or
validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or
duties, thereunder. (Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February
1998)
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet
title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to
consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil
Code, may be brought under this Rule. (1a, R64)
Section 2. Parties. — All persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected by the declaration shall
be made parties; and no declaration shall, except as
otherwise provided in these Rules, prejudice the rights of
persons not parties to the action. (2a, R64)
Section 3. Notice on Solicitor General. — In any action
which involves the validity of a statute, executive order
or regulation, or any other governmental regulation, the
Solicitor General shall be notified by the party assailing
the same and shall be entitled to be heard upon such
question. (3a, R64)
Section 4. Local government ordinances. — In any action
involving the validity of a local government ordinance,
the corresponding prosecutor or attorney of the local
governmental unit involved shall be similarly notified and
entitled to be heard. If such ordinance is alleged to be
unconstitutional, the Solicitor General shall also be
notified and entitled to be heard. (4a, R64)
Section 5. Court action discretionary. — Except in actions
falling under the second paragraph of section 1 of this
Rule, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may
refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to
construe instruments in any case where a decision would
not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave
rise to the action, or in any case where the declaration or
construction is not necessary and proper under the
circumstances. (5a, R64)
Section 6. Conversion into ordinary action. — If before
the final termination of the case, a breach or violation of
an instrument or a statute, executive order or regulation,
ordinance, or any other governmental regulation should
take place, the action may thereupon be converted into
an ordinary action, and the parties shall be allowed to file
such pleadings as may be necessary or proper. (6a, R64)
FAJA v. COURT OF APPEALS
Facts: On April 1975, Frial filed an action against Faja to
recover possession of the 235,854 sq.m. lot covered by
OCT No. RO-1496 registered under Frial’s father. The
complaint alleged that Faja has been illegally occupying
the lot since 1945 and that despite demand, the former
refuses to revert the same. In his answer, Faja denied the
allegation, contending that (1) the disputed lot was
lawfully acquired through succession from his
predecessors who were in continuous possession of the
same for more than 60 years, (2) it was supported by Tax
Declaration No 5523, and (3) they were the current
occupants and cultivators of said lot. Faja alleged that
Frial’s decree of registration was obtained through fraud
considering that they were neither the actual possessors
nor the occupants of the same. As such, Faja by way of
counterclaim sought for the nullity of Frial’s certificate of
title in his favor. Frial in defense, claimed that Faja’s right
to question the validity of the Certificate has already
prescribed.
Issue: Whether Faja’s counterclaim of reconveyance is
no longer possible considering that more than 10 years
has elapsed since the issuance of Frial’s decree of
registration
Ruling:
1. No. Settled is the rule that one who is in actual
possession of a piece of land claiming to be owner
thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his
title is attacked, before taking steps to vindicate his right,
the reason for the rule being, that his undisturbed
possession gives him a continuing right to the seek the
aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the
nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect
on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one
who is in possession. Thus, an action to quiet title to
property in the possession of plaintiff is imprescriptible.
CANERO v. UP
FACTS:
Cañero filed a petition for reconstitution of title of a lot.
They alleged that the lot had been registered in their
name, but the original copy of the TCT had been lost
when the Quezon City Hall was razed by a fire. Sometime
later, petitioner received information that respondent
UP had claimed title and secured a tax declaration in its
name for the said lot. Petitioner filed an action16 to quiet
the title. Respondent UP filed a Motion to Dismiss,
alleging that it had been in open, continuous and
uninterrupted possession of the said lot from the year
1914. The trial court rendered judgment in favour of
Canero. But this reversed by the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject lot is owned by UP
HELD:
We rule that the lot subject of the case at bar belongs to
respondent UP. In numerous earlier jurisprudence, we
have held that this subject lot is part of the mass of land
owned by respondent UP. It is judicial notice that the
legitimacy of UP's title has been settled in several other
cases decided by this Court.
We rule that the appellate court is correct in holding that
the trial court should have dismissed the complaint to
quiet title. Petitioner’s reconstituted title is his basis for
filing the action to quiet title against respondent UP. The
reconstituted title and the proceedings from which it
hailed from are, however, void.
R.A. No. 26 provides for a special procedure for the
reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title that are
missing but not fictitious titles or titles which are existing.
It is an absolute absurdity to reconstitute existing
certificates of title that are on file and available in the
registry of deeds.
When a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction and its
nullity is shown by virtue of its own recitals, it may be
said to be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an
outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and
whenever it exhibits its head.
We further note that even if the subject lot had not
already been registered in the name of respondent UP,
still the reconstitution proceedings are void for lack of
notice to adjoining property owners.
Judicial reconstitution of title partakes of a land
registration proceeding. Thus, notice of the proceedings
must be given in the manner set forth by the letter of the
law.34 A cursory perusal of the petition for
reconstitution35 filed by petitioner, clearly reveals that
the adjoining property owners were never mentioned
and, hence, not notified.
As early as the case of Manila Railroad Company vs.
Moya,37 we had already ruled that if no notice of the
date of hearing of a reconstitution case is served on a
possessor or one having interest in the property
involved, he is deprived of his day in court and the order
of reconstitution is null and void, even if, otherwise, the
said order should have been final and executory.
The rule is rightly so because one who seeks the
reconstitution of his title to property is duty-bound to
know who are the occupants, possessors thereof, or
persons having an interest in the property involved,
especially where the property is so vast and situated in a
suitable residential and commercial location, where
buildings and improvements have been or are being
constructed openly and publicly.
We strongly admonish courts and unscrupulous lawyers
to stop entertaining spurious cases seeking further to
assail respondent UP’s title. These cases open the
dissolute avenues of graft to unscrupulous land-grabbers
who prey like vultures upon the campus of respondent
UP. By such actions, they wittingly or unwittingly aid the
hucksters who want to earn a quick buck by misleading
the gullible to buy the Philippine counterpart of the
proverbial London Bridge. It is well past time for courts
and lawyers to cease wasting their time and resources on
these worthless causes and take judicial notice of the fact
that respondent UP’s title had already been validated
countless times by this Court. Any ruling deviating from
such doctrine is to be viewed as a deliberate intent to
sabotage the rule of law and will no longer be
countenanced.
V. Reconstitution of Title
PD 1529, Section 109:
Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate
certificate. In case of loss or theft of an owner's duplicate
certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by
the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of
Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon
as the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate
is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person
applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for
the registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of
the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the
registered owner or other person in interest and
registered.
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other
person in interest, the court may, after notice and due
hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate
certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the
fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate
certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith
and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter
be regarded as such for all purposes of this decree.
Republic Act 26:
Section 1. Certificates of title lost or destroyed shall be
reconstituted in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.
Section 2. Original certificates of title shall be
reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder
enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
(a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;
(b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of
the certificate of title;
(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously
issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian
thereof;
(d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration
or patent, as the case may be, pursuant to which the
original certificate of title was issued;
(e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which
the property, the description of which is given in said
document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an
authenticated copy of said document showing that its
original had been registered; and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the
court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the
lost or destroyed certificate of title.
Section 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be
reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder
enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
(a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;
(b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of
the certificate of title;
(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously
issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian
thereof;
(d) The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the
registry of deeds, containing the description of the
property, or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that
its original had been registered, and pursuant to which
the lost or destroyed transfer certificate of title was
issued;
(e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which
the property, the description of which is given in said
document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an
authenticated copy of said document showing that its
original had been registered; and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the
court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the
lost or destroyed certificate of title.
Section 4. Liens and other encumbrances affecting a
destroyed or lost certificate of title shall be reconstituted
from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may
be available, in the following order:
(a) Annotations or memoranda appearing on the owner's
co-owner's mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate;
(b) Registered documents on file in the registry of deeds,
or authenticated copies thereof showing that the
originals thereof had been registered; and
(c) Any other document which, in the judgment of the
court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the
liens or encumbrances affecting the property covered by
the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
Section 5. Petitions for reconstitution from sources
enumerated in sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and/or 4(a)
of this Act may be filed with the register of deeds
concerned by the registered owner, his assigns, or other
person having an interest in the property. The petition
shall be accompanied with the necessary sources for
reconstitution and with an affidavit of the registered
owner stating, among other things, that no deed or other
instrument affecting the property had been presented
for registration, or, if there be any, the nature thereof,
the date of its presentation, as well as the names of the
parties, and whatever the registration of such deed or
instrument is still pending accomplishment. If the
reconstitution is to be made from any of the sources
enumerated in section 2(b) or 3(b), the affidavit should
further state that the owner's duplicate has been lost or
destroyed and the circumstances under which it was lost
or destroyed. Thereupon, the register of deeds shall, no
valid reason to the contrary existing, reconstitute the
certificate of title as provided in this Act.
Section 7. Reconstituted certificates of title shall have
the same validity and legal effect as the originals thereof:
Provided, however, That certificates of title
reconstituted extrajudicially, in the manner stated in
sections five and six hereof, shall be without prejudice to
any party whose right or interest in the property was duly
noted in the original, at the time it was lost or destroyed,
but entry or notation of which has not been made on the
reconstituted certificate of title. This reservation shall be
noted as an encumbrance on the reconstituted
certificate of title.
Section 8. Any person whose right or interest was duly
noted in the original of a certificate of title, at the time it
was lost or destroyed, but does not appear so noted on
the reconstituted certificate of title, which is subject to
the reservation provided in the preceding section, may,
while such reservation subsists, file a petition with the
proper Court of First Instance for the annotation of such
right or interest on said reconstituted certificate of title,
and the court, after notice and hearing, shall determine
the merits of the petition and render such judgment as
justice and equity may require. The petition shall state
the number of the reconstituted certificate of title and
the nature, as well as a description, of the right or
interest claimed.
Section 9. A registered owner desiring to have his
reconstituted certificate of title freed from the
encumbrance mentioned in section seven of this Act,
may file a petition to that end with the proper Court of
First Instance, giving his reason or reasons therefor. A
similar petition may, likewise, be filed by a mortgagee,
lessees or other lien holder whose interest is annotated
in the reconstituted certificate of title. Thereupon, the
court shall cause a notice of the petition to be published,
at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive
issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the
main entrance of the provincial building and of the
municipal building of the municipality or city in which the
land lies, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing,
and after hearing, shall determine the petition and
render such judgment as justice and equity may require.
The notice shall specify, among other things, the number
of the certificate of title, the name of the registered
owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in
the reconstituted certificate of title, the location of the
property, and the date on which all persons having an
interest in the property must appear and file such claim
as they may have. The petitioner shall, at the hearing,
submit proof of the publication and posting of the notice:
Provided, however, That after the expiration of two years
from the date of the reconstitution of a certificate of
title, if no petition has been filed within that period under
the preceding section, the court shall, on motion ex parte
by the registered owner or other person having
registered interest in the reconstituted certificate of title,
order the register of deeds to cancel, proper annotation,
the encumbrance mentioned in section seven hereof.
Section 10. Nothing hereinbefore provided shall prevent
any registered owner or person in interest from filing the
petition mentioned in section five of this Act directly with
the proper Court of First Instance, based on sources
enumerated in sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and/or 4(a)
of this Act: Provided, however, That the court shall cause
a notice of the petition, before hearing and granting the
same, to be published in the manner stated in section
nine hereof: And provided, further, That certificates of
title reconstituted pursuant to this section shall not be
subject to the encumbrance referred to in section seven
of this Act.
Section 11. Petitions for reconstitution of registered
interests, liens and other encumbrances, based on
sources enumerated in sections 4(b) and/or 4(c) of this
Act, shall be filed, by the interested party, with the
proper Court of First Instance. The petition shall be
accompanied with the necessary documents and shall
state, among other things, the number of the certificate
of title and the nature as well as a description of the
interest, lien or encumbrance which is to be
reconstituted, and the court, after publication, in the
manner stated in section nine of this Act, and hearing
shall determine the merits of the petition and render
such judgment as justice and equity may require.
Section 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources
enumerated in sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d),
3(e) and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper
Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his
assigns, or any person having an interest in the property.
The petition shall state or contain, among other things,
the following: (a) that the owner's duplicate of the
certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no
co-owner's mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate had been
issued, or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost
or destroyed; (c) the location, area and boundaries of the
property; (d) the nature and description of the buildings
or improvements, if any, which do not belong to the
owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the
owners of such buildings or improvements; (e) the
names and addresses of the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, of the owners of the
adjoining properties and all persons who may have any
interest in the property; (f) a detailed description of the
encumbrances, if any, affecting the property; and (g) a
statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting
the property have been presented for registration, or, if
there be any, the registration thereof has not been
accomplished, as yet. All the documents, or
authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in
evidence in support of the petition for reconstitution
shall be attached thereto and filed with the same:
Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made
exclusively from sources enumerated in section 2(f) of
3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further be
accompanied with a plan and technical description of the
property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land
Registration Office, or with a certified copy of the
description taken from a prior certificate of title covering
the same property.
Section 13. The court shall cause a notice of the petition,
filed under the preceding section, to be published, at the
expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of
the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main
entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal
building of the municipality or city in which the land is
situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing.
The court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be
sent, by registered mail or otherwise, at the expense of
the petitioner, to every person named therein whose
address is known, at least thirty days prior to the date of
hearing. Said notice shall state, among other things, the
number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, if
known, the name of the registered owner, the names of
the occupants or persons in possession of the property,
the owners of the adjoining properties and all other
interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of
the property, and the date on which all persons having
any interest therein must appear and file their claim or
objections to the petition. The petitioner shall, at the
hearing, submit proof of the publication, posting and
service of the notice as directed by the court.
Section 14. If any person withholds, refuses or fails within
a reasonable time after request, to produce a document
or paper without which the reconstitution of a certificate
of title, or any lien or annotation affecting the same,
cannot be fully accomplished, the court may, on motion
and after notice and hearing order such person to
produce and/or surrender such document or paper at
the time and place named in the order and may enforce
the same by suitable process.
Section 15. If the court, after hearing, finds that the
documents presented, as supported by parole evidence
or otherwise, are sufficient and proper to warrant the
reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title,
and that the petitioner is the registered owner of the
property or has an interest therein, that the said
certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or
destroyed, and that the description, area and boundaries
of the property are substantially the same as those
contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title, an
order of reconstitution shall be issued. The clerk of court
shall forward to the register of deeds a certified copy of
said order and all the documents which, pursuant to said
order, are to be used as the basis of the reconstitution. If
the court finds that there is no sufficient evidence or
basis to justify the reconstitution, the petition shall be
dismissed, but such dismissal shall not preclude the right
of the party or parties entitled thereto to file an
application for confirmation of his or their title under the
provisions of the Land Registration Act.
Section 16. After the reconstitution of a certificate of title
under the provisions of this Act, the register of deeds
shall issue the corresponding owner's duplicate and the
additional copies of said certificates of title, if any had
been previously issued, where such owner's duplicate
and/or additional copies have been destroyed or lost.
This fact shall be noted on the reconstituted certificate
of title.
Section 17. The register of deeds shall certify on each
certificate of title reconstituted the date of the
reconstitution, the source or sources from which
reconstitution has been accomplished, and whether
administratively or judicially.
Section 18. In case a certificate of title, considered lost or
destroyed, be found or recovered, the same shall prevail
over the reconstituted certificate of title, and, if both
titles appear in the name of the same registered owner,
all memoranda of new liens or encumbrances, if any,
made on the latter, after its reconstitution, except the
memorandum of the reservation referred to in section
seven of this Act, shall be transferred to the recovered
certificate of title. Thereupon, the register of deeds shall
cancel the reconstituted certificate of title and spread
upon the owner's duplicate, as well as on the co-owner's,
mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate, if any has been issued,
such annotations of subsisting liens or encumbrances as
may appear on the recovered certificate of title,
cancelling at the same time the memorandum of the
reservation referred to in section seven hereof:
Provided, however, That if the reconstituted certificate
of title has been cancelled by virtue of any deed or
instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, or by an
order of the court, and a new certificate of title has been
issued, the recovered certificate of title shall be likewise
cancelled, but all subsisting liens or encumbrances, if
any, appearing thereon shall be transferred to the new
certificate of title and to its owner's duplicate, as well as
to any co-owner's, mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate that
may have been issued, the memorandum of the
reservation referred to in section seven of this Act, if any,
being thereby ipso facto cancelled.
Section 20. If the registered owner or any other person
withholds, refuses or fails, within a reasonable time after
request, to produce the owner's duplicate or any other
duplicate of a certificate of title, for cancellation or
annotation as provided in sections eighteen and
nineteen of this Act, the register of deeds shall report the
fact to the proper Court of First Instance and the court,
after notice and hearing, may order the person
concerned to produce the duplicate in his possession at
the time and place named in the order, and may enforce
the same by suitable process.
Section 21. In all cases where the reconstituted
certificate of title does not contain the full technical
description of the land, except where such technical
description is contained, in a prior certificate of title
which is available, the registered owner shall, within two
years from the date of the reconstitution, file a plan of
such land with the Chief of the General Land Registration
Office, who, after approving the same, shall furnish the
register of deeds with a copy of the technical description
of said land for annotation on the proper certificate of
title and file. After the expiration of the period above
prescribed, no transfer certificate of title shall be issued
in pursuance of any voluntary instrument until such plan
and technical description shall have been filed and noted
as provided above.
Section 22. Every petition filed with the court under this
Act shall be sworn to by the petitioner or the person
acting in his behalf and filed and entitled in the land
registration or cadastral case in which the decree of
registration was entered. If the petition relates to a
certificate of title originally issued under the provisions
of section one hundred twenty-two of Act Numbered
Four hundred and ninety-six and the property has been
included in a cadastral survey, the petition shall be filed
in the corresponding cadastral case: Provided, however,
That where the property has not been included in a
cadastral survey, or where the land registration or
cadastral case has been lost or destroyed and/or the
number thereof cannot be identified, the petition shall
be filed in a special case to be entitled "Special
proceedings for reconstitution of lost certificate of title."
Section 23. No fees shall be charged for the filing of any
petition under this Act, nor for any service rendered, in
connection therewith or in compliance with any
provision of this Act, by the Chief of the General Land
Registration Office, clerks of Court of First Instance,
sheriffs, and/or register of deeds. Any certified copy of
document or paper that may be necessary in the
reconstitution of a certificate of title under this Act shall,
upon request of the court, register of deeds, or Chief of
the General Land Registration Office, be furnished free of
charge, by any office or branch of the Government,
including Government controlled corporations,
institutions or instrumentalities.
Section 24. The Chief of the General Land Registration
Office, with the approval of the Secretary of Justice, shall
issue rules, regulations, circulars and instructions, and
prescribe such books and blank form, as may be
necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act.
Republic Act 6732:
"Sec. 110. Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed Original of
Torrens Title. - Original copies of certificates of titles lost
or destroyed in the offices of Register of Deeds as well as
liens and encumbrances affecting the lands covered by
such titles shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance
with the procedure prescribed in Republic Act No. 26
insofar as not inconsistent with this Decree. The
procedure relative to administrative reconstitution of
lost or destroyed certificate prescribed in said Act may
be availed of only in case of substantial loss or
destruction of land titles due to fire, flood or other force
majeure as determined by the Administrator of the Land
Registration Authority: Provided, That the number of
certificates of titles lost or damaged should be at least
ten percent (10%) of the total number in the possession
of the Office of the Register of Deeds: Provided, further,
That in no case shall the number of certificates of titles
lost or damaged be less than five hundred (500).
"Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial
reconstitution shall be furnished the Register of Deeds of
the place where the land is situated and to the
Administrator of the Land Registration Authority. No
order or judgment ordering the reconstitution of a
certificate of title shall become final until the lapse of
fifteen (15) days from receipt by the Register of Deeds
and by the Administrator of the Land Registration
Authority of a notice of such order or judgment without
any appeal having been filed by any such officials."
(Amending PD 1529)
"Sec. 5. Petitions for reconstitution from sources
enumerated in Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a,) and 3(b) of this
Act may be filed with the Register of Deeds concerned by
the registered owner, his assigns, or other person, both
natural and juridical, having an interest in the property.
The petition shall be accompanied with the necessary
sources for reconstitution and with an affidavit of the
registered owner stating, among other things:
"(1) That no deed or other instrument affecting the
property had been presented for registration, or, if there
be any, the nature thereof, the date of its presentation,
as well as the names of the parties, and whether the
registration of such deed or instrument is still pending
accomplishment;
"(2) That the owner's duplicate certificate or co-owner's
duplicate is in due form without any apparent intentional
alterations or erasures;
"(3) That the certificate of title is not the subject of
litigation or investigation, administrative or judicial,
regarding its genuineness or due execution or issuance;
"(4) That the certificate of title was in full force and effect
at the time it was lost or destroyed;
"(5) That the certificate of title is covered by a tax
declaration regularly issued by the Assessor's Office; and
"(6) That real estate taxes have been fully paid up to at
least two (2) years prior to the filing of the petition for
reconstitution.
"If the reconstitution is to be made from any of the
sources enumerated in Section 2(b) or 3(b), the affidavit
should further state that the owner's duplicate has been
lost or destroyed and the circumstances under which it
was lost or destroyed. Thereupon, the Register of Deeds
shall, no valid reason to the contrary existing,
reconstitute the certificate of title as provided in this
Act."
Section 3. Immediately after the loss or destruction of
titles mentioned in Section 2 hereof, a true, complete
and faithful inventory of all books, titles, documents,
cash and property in the Registry of Deeds concerned
shall be prepared by the Land Registration Authority
through the newly designated reconstituting officer or
Register of Deeds. Said inventory, duly signed and
certified under oath by the Administrator of the Land
Registration Authority, shall be published in a newspaper
of general circulation in the province or city where the
loss or destruction of titles occurred.
Section 4. All reconstituted titles shall be reproduced by
the Land Registration Authority in at least three image
copies or in whatever means by which the original can be
reproduced, one copy to be kept by the Land Registration
Authority, the second copy to be kept by the National
Library Archives Division, and the third copy to be
secured in a government fire-proof vault, preferably in
the Security Printing Plant of the Central Bank. Such
image copy of the original copy of the reconstituted title
shall be considered after due authentication by the Land
Registration Authority, through the Register of Deeds in
the province or city where the land is located, as a
duplicate original, and as an authorized source or basis
for reconstitution together with the sources enumerated
in Section 2 and 3 of Republic Act No. 26.
Section 5. After reconstitution, said owner's duplicate or
co-owner's duplicate exhibited as basis for the
reconstitution shall be surrendered to the Register of
Deeds and a new certificate of title issued in lieu thereof,
the original of which shall be kept by the Register of
Deeds and the owners duplicate delivered to the
registered owner.
Section 6. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 26 is hereby
declared inoperative.
Section 7. Section 19 of Republic Act No. 26 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 19. If the certificate of title considered lost or
destroyed, and subsequently found or recovered, is not
in the name of the same person in whose favor the
reconstituted certificate of title has been issued, the
Register of Deeds or the party concerned should bring
the matter to the attention of the proper regional trial
court, which, after due notice and hearing, shall order
the cancellation of the reconstituted certificate of title
and render, with respect to the memoranda of new liens
and encumbrances, if any, made in the reconstituted
certificate of title, after its reconstitution, such judgment
as justice and equity may require: Provided, however,
That if the reconstituted certificate of title has been
cancelled by virtue of any deed or instrument, whether
voluntary or involuntary, or by an order of the court, and
a new certificate of title has been issued, the procedure
prescribed above, with respect to the memorandum of
new liens and encumbrances made on the reconstituted
certificate of title, after its reconstitution, shall be
followed with respect to the new certificate of title, and
to such new liens and encumbrances, if any, as may have
been on the latter, after the issuance thereof."
Section 8. The Administrator of the Land Registration
Authority, with the approval of the Secretary of Justice,
shall issue rules, regulations, and circulars as may be
necessary and appropriate to implement this Act,
including but not limited to the following:
(1) The temporary designation of a reconstituting officer
or another Register of Deeds;
(2) The submission of monthly periodic status reports on
reconstitution proceedings and reconstituted titles to
the Secretary of Justice and the governor or city mayor
concerned; and
(3) The immediate reporting by the reconstituting officer
or Register of Deeds to the Secretary of Justice and the
governor or city mayor concerned on any verified
complaint presented to him.
Section 9. The Land Registration Authority Administrator
may review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm any
decision of the reconstituting officer or Register of
Deeds. Any appeal shall be filed within fifteen days from
the receipt of the judgment or order by the aggrieved
party.
SECTION 10. Any interested party who by fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence has been unjustly
deprived or prevented from taking part in the
proceedings may file a petition in the proper court to set
aside the decision and to reopen the proceedings. The
petition shall be verified and must be filed within sixty
days after the petitioner learns of the decision but not
more than six months from the promulgation thereof.
Section 11. A reconstituted title obtained by means of
fraud, deceit or other machination is void ab initio as
against the party obtaining the same and all persons
having knowledge thereof.
Section 12. Any person who by means of fraud, deceit or
other machination obtains or attempts to obtain a
reconstituted title shall be subject to criminal
prosecution and, upon conviction, shall be liable for
imprisonment for a period of not less than two years but
not exceeding five years or the payment of a fine of not
less than Twenty thousand pesos but not exceeding Two
hundred thousand pesos or both at the discretion of the
court.
Any public officer or employee who knowingly approves
or assists in securing a decision allowing reconstitution in
favor of any person not entitled thereto shall be subject
to criminal prosecution and, upon conviction, shall be
liable for imprisonment of not less than five years but not
exceeding ten years or payment of a fine of not less than
Fifty thousand pesos but not exceeding One hundred
thousand pesos or both at the discretion of the court and
perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
CABELLO v. REPUBLIC
FACTS:
Dolores Cabello and Teofilo Abellanosa sought the
reconstitution of an unknown OCT. Petitioners alleged
that an OCT over the property was issued by the ROD of
Cebu City in the names of Basilio and Roberto
Abellanosa. However, the OCT on file with the ROD and
the owner’s duplicate certificate of title in the possession
of the registered owners were lost during WW II.
Further, the petition was allegedly filed pursuant to Sec.
2(d) in relation to Sec. 12 of RA 26, which dispenses with
the requirement of submission of the tracing cloth/blue
print plan and technical description.
The trial court rendered a Decision, ordering the ROD to
reconstitute the OCT for Lot No. 4504 in the names of
Basilio Abellanosa and Roberto Abellanosa.
The OSG, appealed the Decision. The appellate court
reversed the trial court’s findings. The CA denied
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Hence this
petition.
RULING:
We deny the petition.
In this case, there appears to be no question as regards
compliance with the procedural requirements of RA 26.
Rather, the controversy lies in the documentary basis for
the reconstitution.
In relation to Sec. 12 of RA 26, in case the reconstitution
is to be made exclusively from sources enumerated in
Sec. 2(f), the petition shall be further accompanied by a
plan and technical description of the property duly
approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration
Office, or with a certified copy of the description taken
from a prior certificate of title covering the same
property.
In this case, petitioners attached to their petition for
reconstitution a certified photocopy of the decree of
registration pursuant to which an original certificate of
title was allegedly issued by the ROD covering the
property. They also presented a witness who testified
that he had actually seen a copy of the property’s OCT.
The trial court, after evaluating the documentary and
testimonial evidence, was convinced that the property is
covered by an original certificate of title, the original and
owner’s copies of which were lost, and accordingly
ordered the reconstitution of the original certificate of
title.
The propriety of the reconstitution ordered by the trial
court in light of the certification issued by the Registry of
Deeds “[T]hat records in this office do not show that a
certificate of title has been issued to Lot No./s 4504…”, is
now at issue. The OSG insists that the petition for
reconstitution should have been considered by the trial
court as filed under Sec. 2(f) of RA 26, in accordance with
which the plan and technical description of the property
should have also been presented, because the question
of whether an original certificate of title was issued
pursuant to the decree of registration was put in doubt
by the certification issued by the Registry of Deeds.
We cannot give primacy to the findings of the trial court
over the categorical certification by the ROD that its
records do not show that a certificate or title was issued
over the property.
Only Felipe Abangan was able to positively testify that he
had seen the OCT of the property. Petitioner Dolores
Cabello merely testified to the effect that Basilio
Abellanosa kept the OCT but that she did not know
where it was.
The evidence presented by petitioners does not establish
that an original certificate of title over the property was
earlier issued. Hence, the reconstitution ordered by the
trial court was improper. The petition should have been
filed under Sec. 2(f) of RA 26 and it should have been
accompanied by a duly approved plan and technical
description of the property in accordance with Sec. 12 of
the law.
ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB
FACTS: The Supreme Court rendered a decision declaring
that neither Tomas N. Alonso nor his son Francisco M.
Alonso or the latter’s heirs are the lawful owners of the
lot in dispute. Neither has the respondent Cebu Country
Club, Inc. been able to establish a clear title over the
contested estate. The reconstitution of a title is simply
the re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title in its
original form and condition. It does not determine or
resolve the ownership of the land covered by the lost or
destroyed title. A reconstituted title, like the original
certificate of title, by itself does not vest ownership of
the land or estate covered thereby.
It declared that the subject lot legally belongs to the
Government of the Philippines. Wherefore, the petition
for review was denied.
Petitioners and respondent filed separate motions for
reconsideration, each assailing a different aspect of the
decision.
ISSUE: Petitioners, in their MR vigorously argue that:
the majority decision unduly deprives petitioners of their
property without due process of law and “in a manner
shocking to good conscience”;
in invalidating the sale to the late Tomas Alonso, the
ponencia unfairly deviated from established doctrine,
using as basis factual findings either unsupported by the
evidence or contradicted by the appellate court’s
findings of fact;
the core issues of fraud and want of jurisdiction afflicting
the reconstitution of respondent Cebu Country Club’s
title were not squarely and frontally met, to the
prejudice and damage of the petitioners; and
the dissenting opinion deserves a second hard look as it
presents a more balanced, sober, factually accurate, and
juridically precise approach to the critical issues of this
case, including prescription and laches.
Respondents, in their MR staunchly assails the decision
insofar as it declared that that the subject land legally
belongs to the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines. Moreover:
The Torrens Certificate of Title of respondent, covering
subject lot cannot be collaterally attacked and nullified in
this case at bar.
HELD: IN VIEW THEREOF, we DENY with finality the
separate motions for reconsideration of the petitioners
and respondent.
Tomas Alonso had caused the reconstitution of his title
on a Lot which is adjacent to the disputed property, and
yet petitioners failed to show that Tomas Alonso exerted
the same effort to reconstitute his alleged title to the
subject property. As successors-in-interest, petitioners
merely stepped into the shoes of Tomas Alonso. They
cannot claim a right greater than that of their
predecessor.
Moreover, it cannot be over-accentuated that Tomas
Alonso, petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, never
asserted any claim of ownership over the disputed
property during his lifetime. When he was alive, Tomas
Alonso did not exert any effort to have the title of the
disputed property reconstituted in his name or seek
recovery thereof from the respondent which was in
possession since 1931
1. Section 18 of Act No. 1120 or the Friar Lands Act
unequivocally provides:
“No lease or sale made by the Chief of the Bureau of
Public Lands (now the Director of Lands) under the
provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the
Secretary of the Interior (now, the Secretary of Natural
Resources).
Thus, petitioners’ claim of ownership must fail in the
absence of positive evidence showing the approval of the
Secretary of Interior. Approval of the Secretary of the
Interior cannot simply be presumed or inferred from
certain acts since the law is explicit in its mandate. This is
the settled rule.
2. It must be emphasized that in civil cases, the burden
of proof to be established by preponderance of evidence
is on the plaintiff who is asserting the affirmative of an
issue. Inasmuch as petitioners pray for the “Declaration
of Nullity and Non-Existence of Deed/Title, Cancellation
of Certificates of Title and Recovery of Property” against
the respondent, they had the burden to establish their
claims of ownership of the subject property which they
failed to do in this case.
3. While we held that the issue of the validity of
respondent’s title is factual which cannot be reviewed on
appeal, nevertheless, we have answered each ground
raised by petitioner in assailing respondent’s title.
Needless to stress, mere allegations of fraud are not
enough. Fraud is never presumed but must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of
evidence not even being adequate.
It must be borne in mind that the disputed property is
part of the “Friar Lands” over which the Government
holds title and are not public lands but private or
patrimonial property of the Government and can be
alienated only upon proper compliance with the
requirements of Act No. 1120 or the Friar Lands Act.
Sections 11, 12 and 18 of Act No. 1120 provide:
SECTION 11. Should any person who is the actual and
bona fide settler upon and occupant of any portion of
said lands . . . desire to purchase the land so occupied by
him, he shall be entitled to do so at the actual cost
thereof to the Government, and shall be allowed ten
years from the date of purchase within which to pay for
the same in equal annual installments, if he so desires, all
deferred payments to bear interest at the rate of four per
centum per annum on all deferred payments.
SECTION 12. … When the cost thereof shall have been
thus ascertained the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands
shall give the said settler and occupant a certificate
which shall set forth in detail that the Government has
agreed to sell to such settler and occupant the amount
of land so held by him, at the prize so fixed, payable as
provided in this Act . . . and that upon the payment of the
final installment together with all accrued interest the
Government will convey to such settler and occupant the
said land so held by him by proper instrument of
conveyance, which shall be issued and become effective
in the manner provided in section one hundred and
twenty-two of the Land Registration Act. …
SECTION 18. No lease or sale made by the Chief of the
Bureau of Public Lands under the provisions of this Act
shall be valid until approved by the Secretary of the
Interior.
It was thus primordial for the respondent to prove its
acquisition of its title by clear and convincing evidence in
view of the nature of the land. In fact, it is essential for
both respondent and petitioners to establish that it had
become private property. Both parties failed to do so.
On the part of respondent, it failed to shed light on how
its predecessor in interest, United Services Country Club,
Inc., acquired its title. Surprisingly, there is not even one
evidence to show when and how its predecessor in
interest, United Services Country Club, Inc., acquired the
property from anybody.

Respondent relies solely on its reconstituted title which,

by itself, does not determine or resolve the ownership of
the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. The
reconstitution of a title is simply the re-issuance of a lost
duplicate certificate of title in its original form and
condition. It does not determine or resolve the
ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed
title. A reconstituted title, like the original certificate of
title, by itself does not vest ownership of the land or
estate covered thereby.

a. Furthermore, the declaration in the Court’s judgment

that the subject property belongs to the Government is
not an offshoot of a collateral attack on respondent’s
title. The validity of the reconstitution of title to the land
in question was directly in dispute, and the proceedings
before the trial court was in the nature of a direct attack
on the legality of respondent’s title.

Neither may the rewards of prescription be successfully

invoked by respondent, as it is an iron-clad dictum that
prescription can never lie against the Government. Since
respondent failed to present the paper trail of the
property’s conversion to private property, the lengthy
possession and occupation of the disputed land by
respondent cannot be counted in its favor, as the subject
property being a friar land, remained part of the
patrimonial property of the Government. Possession of
patrimonial property of the Government, whether
spanning decades or centuries, cannot ipso facto ripen
into ownership