CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK (CAGAYAN VALLEY), INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NERISSA C. ENRICO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.
GALAPATE-LAGUILLES, J:
On 9 January 2002, the Bank filed a Petition for the reconstitution of TCT Nos. T-102397 and T-102398 of the Register of Deeds of Isabela allegedly to have been lost or destroyed. TCT No. T-102397 for Lot D of the Subdivision Plan Psd-50244 consists of 20,000 square meters, while TCT No. T-102398 for Lot D of the Subdivision Plan Psd-56831 has an area of 60,000 square meters. The two (2) parcels of land covered by the said certificates of title are located in Tumauini, Isabela.[3]
The Bank averred that it acquired the subject lands through foreclosure sale, as the same were offered by the previous owner as security for a loan. However, the original copies of TCT Nos. T-102397 and T-102398 on file with the Register of Deeds of Isabela could not be located as per Certification[4] issued by the said office on 14 November 2001.[5]
The Bank further contended that the subject properties have not yet been sold, transferred or encumbered nor any transaction had ever been undertaken over the same.[6]
Finding the Petition sufficient in form and substance, the RTC issued an Order[7] dated 10 January 2002 setting the initial hearing of the Petition on 6 May 2002 at 8:30 in the morning. The said Order was posted in the bulletin board of the RTC, the Municipal Hall of Tumaini, Isabela, and of the Provincial Capitol Building of Alibagu, Ilagan, Isabela, per Certificate of Posting[8] dated 5 March 2012 issued by the Process Server of the court a quo; and was published in two successive issues of the Official Gazette, per Certificate of Publication issued by the National Printing Office on 3 April 2012.[9] Copies of the Order were sent to the Bank and its counsel, Atty. Valentin Velayo; the Information Officer of the Provincial Capitol of Alibagu, Ilagan, Isabela; the Municipal Hall of Tumauini, Isabela; the Register of Deeds, Ilagan, Isabela; the OSG; and the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority.[10]
In the meantime, the OSG entered its appearance on behalf of the State on 11 February 2002 and directed the Provincial Prosecutor of Cabagan, Isabela, to appear for and in its behalf.[11]
During the initial hearing of the case on 6 May 2002, the case was called but no one entered an opposition to the Petition even after a query was made in open court. An order of general default was issued.12 In the same hearing, the following exhibits were presented to prove jurisdictional facts, viz:
| 1.) | Exhibit “A” – Copy of the Petition;[13] | |
| 2.) | Exhibit “B” – Order dated 10 January 2002 of the RTC setting the initial hearing of the case;[14] | |
| 3.) | Exhibit “C” – Notice of Appearance filed by the OSG on 11 February 2002;[15] | |
| 4.) | Exhibit “D” – Letter dated 31 January 2002 of the OSG deputizing the Provincial Prosecutor of Cabagan, Isabela, to appear on its behalf;[16] | |
| 5.) | Exhibit “E” – Certificate of Publication dated 2 April 2002 issued by the National Printing Office;[17] | |
| 6.) | Exhibit “F” – Certifcate of Posting dated 14 January 2002 issued by the Deputy Sheriff of the RTC;[18] | |
| 7.) | Exhibit “G” – photocopy of TCT No. 102397;[19] | |
| 8.) | Exhibit “G-1” – photocopy of TCT No. 102398;[20] | |
| 9.) | Exhibits “H,” “H-1,” “H-2,” “H-3,” “H-4,” “H-5,” and “H-6” – Registry Receipt Nos. 1270-1276.[21] |
As requested by the LRA in its Letter[22] dated 14 January 2004, the RTC directed the Bank to submit the owner’s duplicate copies of TCT Nos. 102397 and 102398 and a certified copy of lot data computation as prepared by a duly licensed Geodetic Engineer.[23] While the Bank was able to submit a certified copy of the lot data computation for the subject parcels of land, it merely submitted photocopies of TCT Nos. 102397 and 102398.[24] On 2 August 2004, the RTC directed anew the Bank to submit the owner’s duplicate copies of TCT Nos. 102397 and 102398.[25] It appears however that the Bank allegedly presented to the Court the said duplicate copies per certification issued by the branch clerk of court of the RTC at the dorsal portions of the photocopies of TCT Nos. 102397 and 102398.
In the course of the proceedings of the case, the Bank offered, among others, as its additional exhibit, a Certification[26] dated 14 November 2001 issued by the Register of Deeds of Isabela certifying that all records, books, titles and other vital documents filed and kept in the registry were all burned and lost beyond recovery when the office of the Registry of Deeds of Isabela was razed by fire on 4 November 1976. Hence, it could not give any information involving the existence of TCT No. 102398.
On 4 August 2010, the LRA submitted its Report[27] stating that:
(1) The present petition seeks the reconstitution of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-102397 and T-102398, allegedly lost or destroyed and supposedly covering Lots D and D of the subdivision plans (LRC) Psd-50244 and (LRC) Psd-56831, respectively situated in the Barrio of lalauanan, Municipality of Tumauini, Province of Isabela, on the basis of the owner’s duplicates thereof, reproductions of which, duly certified by Atty. Andreu U. Barcena, Clerk of Court VI, were submitted to his Authority.
(2) When the technical descriptions of Lot Nos. D and D of the subdivision plans (LRC) Psd-50244 and (LRC) Psd-56831, appearing on the reproductions of Transfer Certifcates of Title Nos. T-102397 and T-102398 were plotted on the Municipal Index Sheet No. 17898, using as reference subdivision plans (LRC) Psd-50244 and (LRC) Psd-56831, they do not appear to overlap previously plotted/decreed properties in the area.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing information anent the lots in question is respectfully submitted for consideration in the resolution of the instant petition, and if the Honorable Court, after notice and hearing, finds justification pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 26 to grant the same, the reconstituted title should be made subject to such encumbrances as may be subsisting; and provided further, that no certifcates of title covering the same parcels of land exist in the Office of the Register of Deeds concerned.
On 28 April 2011, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby directs the Register of Deeds of Isabela to reconstitute Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-102397 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10239 (sic), pursuant to Section 3(a) of R.A. 26, from the Owner’s Duplicates of the said certificates of title, upon finality hereof.
SO DECIDED.
Hence, the instant Appeal by the Republic raising the following issues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES FOR THE DECISION GRANTING THE PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION WERE DULY PROVED AND ESTABLISHED.[28]
The Republic, through the OSG, avers that the Bank failed to comply with the mandatory and jurisdictional requirements prescribed R.A. No. 26 when it sought for the reconstitution of TCT Nos. T-102397 and T-102398. Further, the Bank failed to prove that the said certifcates of title were validly issued and in force at the time they were allegedly lost or destroyed.[29] Accordingly, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the Petition for reconstitution.
The Appeal is meritorious.
The reconstitution of a certificate of title under R.A. No. 26[30] denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land. The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction occurred.[31] R.A. No. 26 presupposes that the property, which title is sought to be reconstituted, has already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens System.[32]
Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. No. 26 identify the sources for reconstitution of title. Section 3 enumerates the sources upon which the reconstitution of transfer certificates of title shall be based. It provides:
“Section 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
It bears stressing that the documents presented in evidence must come from official sources which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-interest.[33] Aside from the fact that the Bank’s documentary exhibits have miserably failed to acknowledge their right of ownership over the subject land, the authenticity thereof remains suspect and their probative value has been rendered scarce and inadequate.
In Republic of the Philippines v. Santua,[34] the Supreme Court interpreted Section 3, paragraph (f) of R.A. No. 26, as follows:
The Court has already settled in a number of cases that, following the principle of ejusdem generis in statutory construction, “any document” mentioned in Section 3 should be interpreted to refer to documents similar to those previously enumerated therein. As aptly observed by the petitioner, the documents enumerated in Section 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are documents that had been issued or are on file with the Register of Deeds, thus, highly credible.
Moreover, they are documents from which the particulars of the certificate of title or the circumstances which brought about its issuance could readily be ascertained. After all, the purpose of reconstitution proceedings under RA No. 26 is the restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land. Consequently, a petitioner’s documentary evidence should be able to establish that the lost or destroyed certificate of title has, in fact, been issued to the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest and such title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed.
In relation to the foregoing, Secs. 12[35] and 13[36] of R.A. No. 26 requires compliance with additional jurisdictional requirements. Section 15[37] thereof also provides when an order for reconstitution should issue.
Among the sources enumerated in Sec. 3, R.A. 26, the owner’s duplicate of the transfer certificate of title is given primacy because such document is, by all accounts, an exact reproduction of the original copy of the transfer certificate of title. It is required, however, that the owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title itself, and not a mere photocopy thereof, be presented to the court. This is to preclude any question as to the genuineness and authenticity of the owner’s duplicate certificate and bar the possibility of reconstitution based on a fraudulent or forged owner’s duplicate certificate.[38]
It will be observed that the Petition for reconstitution is anchored on the Bank’s alleged duplicate copies of TCT Nos. T-102397 and T-102398, however, what was appended are mere photocopies thereof. While it would appear that the Bank allegedly presented the original of their duplicate copies of TCT Nos. T-102397 and T-102398, We find that this does not warrant their reconstitution. It is noteworthy that in the Report submitted by the LRA to the RTC, the said agency did not authenticate nor did it certify the photocopies as true and faithful renditions of the original titles. They also cannot be considered as being on file with the Register of Deeds of Isabela since obviously, the documents presented were only machine-reproduced from the genuine copy which the Bank managed to have kept in its own private file.
With regard to the Certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Isabela, it cannot be deduced therefrom that TCT Nos. T-102397 and T-102398 were actually issued and kept on file with said office. The affirmation that “all records, books, titles and other vital documents filed and kept in the registry were all burned and lost beyond recovery when the office of the Registry of Deeds of Isabela was razed by fire on 4 November 1976. Hence, it could not give any information involving the existence of TCT No. 102398 x x x” does not confirm that said titles once formed part of the records of the Register of Deeds of Isabela. In fine, it is possible that the lots covered by TCT Nos. T-102397 and T-102398 may have been registered and the certificates of title were issued, but it is also possible that the properties have never been registered and that the certificates of title never issued.
Indeed, the petition for reconstitution may be considered as having been filed under Sec. 3(f) of R.A. No. 26, the photocopies of the owner’s certificate of title presented by the Bank in support of its Petition is still considered secondary evidence. As such, it is inadmissible unless the Bank proves any of the exceptions provided in Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and establishes the conditions for their admissibility under Section 5 of the same rule.[39] Section 5 of the Rule provides:
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on its part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
As the immediately quoted provision of the Rules directs, the order of presentation of secondary evidence is: existence, execution, loss, contents. The order may, however, be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court.[40] The sufficiency of the proof offered as a predicate for the admission of an allegedly lost document lies within the judicial discretion of the trial court under all the circumstances of the particular case.[41] Indubitably, the Bank failed to prove the existence of TCT Nos. 102397 and 102398 that would warrant their reconstitution.
What is more, the Bank failed to show that it had exerted efforts to look for and avail of the sources in paragraphs (a) to (e) before availing of the sources in paragraph (f). Only if the petitioner for reconstitution fails to show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such documents and failed to find them, can the presentation of the “other document” as evidence in substitution be allowed.[42]
Notably, Section 12[43] of R.A. No. 26 mandates that in cases where reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources enumerated in Sections 2(f) and 3(f), the petition shall further be 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, the Petition was not accompanied by a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office nor by a certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property further militating against the reconstitution of TCT Nos. 102397 and 102398. It may not be amiss to point out that non-compliance with the requirements prescribed in Sections 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26 is fatal. The RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution. We cannot stress enough that our jurisprudence is replete with rulings regarding the mandatory character of the requirements of R.A. No. 26. Apropos is the ruling of the Supreme Court in Castillo v. Republic[44] where it held that
Republic Act No. 26 entitled “An act providing a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title lost or destroyed” approved on September 25, 1946 confers jurisdiction or authority to the Court of First Instance to hear and decide petitions for judicial reconstitution. The Act specifically provides the special requirements and mode of procedure that must be followed before the court can properly act, assume and acquire jurisdiction or authority over the petition and grant the reconstitution prayed for. These requirements and procedure are mandatory. The Petition for Reconstitution must allege certain specific jurisdictional facts; the notice of hearing must be published in the Official Gazette and posted in particular places and the same sent or notified to specified persons. Sections 12 and 13 of the Act provide specifically the mandatory requirements and procedure to be followed.
We cannot simply dismiss these defects as “technical.” Liberal construction of the Rules of Court does not apply to land registration cases. Indeed, to further underscore the mandatory character of these jurisdictional requirements, the Rules of Court do not apply to land registration cases. In all cases where the authority of the courts to proceed is conferred by a statute, and when the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is prescribed by a statute, the mode of proceeding is mandatory, and must be strictly complied with, or the proceeding will be utterly void. When the trial court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it lacks authority over the whole case and all its aspects. All the proceedings before the trial court, including its order granting the petition for reconstitution, are void for lack of jurisdiction.
The RTC clearly committed a reversible error in granting appellees’ Petition for reconstitution. Sans evidence that TCT Nos. 102397 and 102398 had in fact existed, were duly issued and was once on file with the Registry of Deeds of Isabela, the certificates of title shall not be reconstituted and a new owner’s duplicate copies thereof shall not be issued in favor of the Bank.
In conclusion, We reiterate the High Court’s admonition in the vintage case of Tahanan Development Corporation. v. Court of Appeals, et al.:[45]
The courts must be cautious and careful in granting reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title, both original and duplicate owner’s, based on documents and decrees made to appear authentic from mere xerox copies and certifications of officials supposedly signed with seals of their office affixed thereon, considering the ease and facility with which documents are made to appear as official and authentic. It is the duty of the courts to scrutinize and verify carefully all supporting documents, deeds and certifications. Each and every fact, circumstance or incident which corroborates or relates to the existence and loss of the title should be examined.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is GRANTED and the assailed Decision dated 28 April 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Cabagan, Isabela, in LRC Case No. 22-388, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Petition for Reconstitution is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Punzalan Castillo, M.P., Chairperson and Lazaro-Javier, A.C., J.J., concur.
[1] Original Records, pp. 135-136. Penned by Judge Felipe Jesus Torio, III.
[2] Id., pp. 2-3.
[3] Id., p. 2.
[4] Id., p. 3.
[5] Id., pp. 7-8. See Certifications issued by the Registry of Deeds of Ilagan, Isabela, Annexes “C” and “D” to the Petition.
[6] Id., p. 3.
[7] Id., p. 11.
[8] Id., p. 9. Exhibit “G.”
[9] Id., p. 14.
[10] Id., pp. 16-17. See dorsal portions.
[11] Id., p. 12.
[12] Id., p. 17.
[13] Original Records, pp. 70-72.
[14] Id., p. 73.
[15] Id., p. 74.
[16] Id., p. 75.
[17] Id., p. 76.
[18] Id., p. 77.
[19] Id., p. 78.
[20] Id., p. 79.
[21] Id., p. 80.
[22] Id., p.. 18.
[23] Id., p. 20. See Letter dated March 15 2004.
[24] Id., p. 22.
[25] Id.
[26] Id., p. 124, Exhibit “J”.
[27] Original Records, p. 132.
[28] Rollo, p. 19.
[29] Id., p. 24.
[30] Entitled “An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title Lost or Destroyed”, approved on September 25, 1946.
[31] Republic v. Vergel de Dios, G.R. No. 170459, February 9, 2011.
[32] Republic v. Tuastumban, G.R. No. 173210, April 24, 2009.
[33] Republic of the Philippines v. Catarroja, G. R. No. 171774, 12 February 2010, citing Republic of the Philippines vs. Tuastumban, supra.
[34] G.R. No. 155703, September 8, 2008.
[35] 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 of all persons who may have 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 to 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) or 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration, or with a certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property.
[36] 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.
[37] 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.
[38] Republic of the Philippines v. Gertrudes Verzosa, G.R. No. 173525, March 28, 2008.
[39] Id.
[40] Republic v. Tuastumban, G.R. No. 173210, April 24, 2009.
[41] Republic v. Spouses Mateo, G.R. No. 148025, August 13, 2004.
[42] Republic of the Philippines v. Catarroja, supra.
[43] Supra.
[44] G.R. No. 182980, June 22, 2011.
[45] G.R. No. L-55771, November 15, 1982.