POCAHONTAS C. BEDIO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.
LAGURA-YAP, J.:
THE ANTECEDENTS
The facts of this case are essentially undisputed:
Appellee alleged she is the custodian of the records of her grandparents, the late spouses Juan Cordero and Carmen Catahay-Cordero, who both died intestate. The said spouses are the registered owners of a real property with an area of 23.9891 hectares, covered by OCT No. (380) (HV-78) HV-61 (“OCT 380”). The property is free from all liens and encumbrances. Appellee kept the owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of title in her personal files, but it got lost. Despite diligent efforts, it could no longer be found. Appellee filed an Affidavit of Loss[2] before the Register of Deeds of Canlaon City.
On February 24, 2009, appellee filed[3] the instant case before the RTC praying that a new owner’s duplicate copy of OCT 380 be issued.
Hearings were, thereafter, conducted.
On October 29, 2009, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the office of the Register of Deeds of Canlaon City is hereby directed to issue a new Owner’s Copy of OCT No. (380) (HV-87) HV-61 in the name of the registered owner, in favor of herein petitioner, after payment of the prescribed fees therefor.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this appeal.[4]
On July 31, 2012, the Brief for the Oppositor-Appellant[5] was filed.
On October 1, 2012, Appellee’s Brief[6] was filed.
On January 29, 2013, appellee filed the Motion for Resolution.[7]
On June 14, 2014, appellee filed the Notice of Change of Address.[8]
ISSUE
WHETHER APPELLEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 109, PD 1529.
THE ARGUMENTS
Section 109 of PD 1529[9] provides that a petition for the re-issuance of the owner’s duplicate of a certificate of title maybe filed by “the registered owner or other person in interest.” Appellant argues that the RTC should have dismissed the petition because appellee failed to show her interest in the property. She cannot be considered an interested person if she does not appear to be so in the original copy of the title on file with the Register of Deeds. Although, she alleged that she is the granddaughter of the registered owner, she failed to adduced evidence to prove this.
Appellant also argues that other interested persons were not notified of the proceeding, in violation of Section 109.
Appellee, for her part, did not squarely address the points raised by appellant. Instead, she argues that the instant case follow the rules on special proceedings where the filing of a record on appeal is a requirement for the perfection of an appeal. In this case, none was filed, thus, the appeal should be dismissed outright because it was never perfected.
Appellee also insists that she had presented evidences to warrant the issuance of a new duplicate certificate. Her testimony and that of her witness, and the affidavit she executed show that the certificate of title is now lost beyond recovery.
Finally, appellee points out that the instant case is merely for the re-issuance of a lost certificate of title, not a civil case which involves ownership of the land covered by it.
THE COURT’S RULING
The appeal is MERITORIOUS.
To start with, We do not agree with appellee that the filing of a record of appeal is necessary for the perfection of instant appeal.
For one, this case is not a special proceeding, contrary to her contention. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.[10] In this case, appellee merely sought for the re-issuance of the certificate of title. This can no way be construed as seeking to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
For another, the filing of a record on appeal is no longer necessary as the RTC had fully resolved all the issues in the present case. In Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation and Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and National Power Corporation,[11] the Supreme Court held that no record on appeal shall be required, except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or the rules so require. The reason for multiple appeals in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the trial court and held to be final. In such case, the filing of a record on appeal becomes indispensable only when a particular incident of the case is brought to the appellate court for resolution with the rest of the proceedings remaining within the jurisdiction of the trial court. Hence, if the trial court has already fully and finally resolved all conceivable issues, then there is no reason why the original records of the case must remain with the trial court. Therefore, there was no need to file a record on appeal because the original records would already be sent to the appellate court.[12]
Going now to the main issue.
Section 109 of PD 1529, reads:
SEC. 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. — In case of lost 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 facts 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.
The above-quoted provision clearly allows a person who is not the owner of the property to file the petition for a new duplicate certificate, provided the person has interest in the property.
In this case, however, appellee failed to adduce evidence that she has an interest in the property. While she alleged that she is the granddaughter of the registered owners, she failed to establish this with sufficient evidence. Allegations are not proof. There must be corroborative evidence.[13] Unfortunately, appellee failed to present such evidence.
Moreover, Section 109, cited above, also requires that interested parties be notified of the petition. In San Agustin v. Hon. Court Of Appeals,[14] the Supreme Court held that notices should be made to those persons who have an interest in the property as shown in memorandum of encumbrances at the back of the certificate of title on file in the Register of Deeds, thus:
In the case at bar, the respective certificate of title of the properties in question on file with the Register of Deeds are existing, and it is the owner’s copy of the certificate of title that was alleged to have been lost or destroyed. Thus, it is Section 109 of P.D. 1529 which was approved on June 11, 1978 that becomes effective and is applicable, a reading of which shows that it is practically the same as Section 109 of Act No. 496, governing reconstitution of a duplicate certificate of title lost or destroyed. Consequently, it is sufficient that the notice under Section 109 is sent to the Register of Deeds and to those persons who are known to have, or appear to have, an interest in the property as shown in the memorandum of encumbrances at the back of the original or transfer certificate of title on file in the office of the Register of Deeds. From a legal standpoint, there are no other interested parties who should be notified, except those abovementioned since they are the only ones who may be deemed to have a claim to the property involved. A person dealing with registered property is not charged with notice of encumbrances not annotated on the back of the title.
In this case, Entry No. 943 (the entry prior to the affidavit of loss filed by appellee) of the Memorandum of Encumbrances of OCT 380, reads:
Entry No. 943: Certification; Executed in favor of the Heirs of Juan Cordero and Carmen Catahay covering the parcel of land described in this title for the period of 5 years under Entry No. 106 is hereby cancelled forever as per deed filed in this office. Date of Instrument: March 30, 1981; Date of Inscription: March 30, 1981 at 11:15 a.m.
Evidently, the heirs of Juan Cordero and Carmen Catahay are interested parties to the case. Appellee should have notified all of them. Her failure to do so is fatal to her cause.
We are aware that, as appellee posits, the instant case does not involve ownership of the land covered by OCT 380, but merely the re-issuance of a lost title. This notwithstanding, courts must take extra efforts to thwart parties from abusing the process. Trial courts must take steps to assure itself that the petitioner is the “registered owner or other person in interest.” Otherwise, new owner’s duplicate certificates might be issued in favor of impostors who could fraudulently dispose, hypothecate or otherwise deal with real estate, in mockery of the Torrens system of titling properties.[15] We quote with approval the argument of the OSG:
In the instant case, extreme caution must have been exercised by the trial court in granting the petition, considering that the owners named in the subject OCT are not the parties seeking the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate but an alleged granddaughter who may not be the sole heir, and considering the large area of the land involved – 23.9891 hectares.
Indeed, the RTC should have exercised extreme caution in granting the instant petition especially since it appears from the record that appellee did not show that she is a person interested in the property, and that interested parties were not notified of the proceeding.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed October 29, 2009 Decision is SET ASIDE. The petition for re-issuance of the lost owner’s duplicate copy filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental is DISMISSED.
Appellee’s Motion for Resolution and Notice of Change of Address are duly NOTED.
SO ORDERED.
Delos Santos, and Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p. 39.
[2] Records, p. 5.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Records, p. 47.
[5] Records, p. 35.
[6] Records, p. 48.
[7] Records, p. 60.
[8] Records, p. 64.
[9] Amending and Codifying the Laws Relative to Registration of Property and for other Purposes.
[10] Ching, et al. v. Hon. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011.
[11] G.R. No. 161219, October 6, 2008.
[12] See National Power Corporation v. Spouses Laohoo, et al., G.R. No. 151973, July 23, 2009.
[13] Chua, et al., v. People, G.R. No. 128095, January 19, 2001.
[14] G.R. No. 121940, December 04, 2001, citing Office of Court Administrator vs. Matas, A.M. No. RTJ-92-836, 247 SCRA 9, 16-17 (1995).
[15] New Durawood Co., Inc. v. Court Of Appeals, G.R. No. 111732, February 20, 1996.