THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND DEMETRIA STA. MARIA VDA. DE BERNAL, RESPONDENTS, GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORP., INTERVENOR, ALABANG DEVELOPMENT CO…

Director of Lands versus Court of Appeals and Demetria Sta. Maria Vda. de Bernal

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Director of Lands against the Court of Appeals and Demetria Sta. Maria Vda. de Bernal, with Greenfield Development Corporation and Alabang Development Corporation appearing as intervenors. The case began as a simple petition for the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed original certificate of title covering two parcels of land in San Dionisio, Parañaque, now Muntinlupa. It matters because it tests the strict requirements of the law on reconstitution of torrens titles, particularly the rule that reconstitution may proceed only from the sources expressly authorized by statute, and because it shows how a title of doubtful origin cannot be the basis for restoring a lost original.

Procedural History

Demetria Sta. Maria Vda. de Bernal filed her original petition for reconstitution in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, seeking to restore the original of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12/T-79. After the Register of Deeds reported that no such title existed in the registry books, she was allowed to file an amended petition changing the title number to Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42449. The Director of Lands filed an opposition in behalf of the government, questioning the genuineness and authenticity of the owner's duplicate copy and the plan and technical descriptions. After hearing, the trial court issued an order denying the reconstitution. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court and granted the reconstitution. The Director of Lands then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, in relation to Republic Act 5440, and also invoked the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, claiming that no appeal nor any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy was available in the ordinary course of law.

Facts

On June 6, 1970, Demetria Sta. Maria Vda. de Bernal filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the reconstitution of the original of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12/T-79, covering two parcels of land in Barrio San Dionisio, Parañaque, now Muntinlupa, with an aggregate area of 143.5062 hectares. She attached a photostat copy of the supposed owner's copy of the title, the plan, and the technical descriptions. Notice of hearing was published in the Official Gazette and posted as required.

Before the hearing, the Register of Deeds reported that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12/T-79 was not in Registry Book No. T-79; that Certificate of Title No. 12 was issued in the name of Edwin Warnes and referred to property in Pasay City; and that no record existed of such a title in the name of Demetria. She was then allowed to amend her petition, changing the title number to Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42449. The amended petition was admitted, and new publication and posting were ordered.

The Director of Lands opposed the petition, alleging that the owner's duplicate was of doubtful origin, that it was issued by the Registry of Deeds of Manila rather than Rizal, that it used an obsolete form, that it bore no official seal, that the plan and technical descriptions were fake, and that the petition did not comply with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26. Demetria testified that she had entrusted the owner's copy to her estranged husband, Angel Cruz, who returned a fake title to her; she later retrieved the genuine Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42449 from him. The National Bureau of Investigation found the signature of the Register of Deeds of Manila on the owner's duplicate to be genuine. The trial court nonetheless denied reconstitution, and the Court of Appeals reversed.

Issues

• Whether or not the reconstitution of the original of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42449 may be granted based on the owner's duplicate copy presented by Demetria Sta. Maria Vda. de Bernal.
• Whether or not the owner's duplicate copy and the plan and technical descriptions are genuine and authentic and may serve as a valid source for reconstitution.
• Whether or not the petition for reconstitution complies with the requirements of Republic Act No. 26, particularly Section 3 thereof.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26 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: (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, which formed the basis of the original certificate of title; (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.

This provision is the heart of the case because it fixes the order and the sources from which a lost or destroyed title may be reconstituted, and the Court measures the petitioner's evidence against these sources.

Ruling

The Court resolved the issues against the petitioner and upheld the reconstitution. On the first issue, the Court held that the owner's duplicate copy is the first and primary source enumerated in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26, and that reconstitution may be ordered when the owner's duplicate is available and shown to be genuine. On the second issue, the Court found that the evidence sufficiently established the genuineness of the owner's duplicate. The National Bureau of Investigation found the signature of the Register of Deeds of Manila to be genuine, and the petitioner satisfactorily explained the discrepancy in the title number, tracing it to the fake title returned by her estranged husband. On the third issue, the Court held that the requirements of publication, posting, and notice were complied with, and that the petition was in accordance with the law.

The Court emphasized that reconstitution does not determine ownership but merely restores the original title, and that the remedy is summary in nature. It also noted that the opposition of the Director of Lands did not overcome the presumption of regularity in the issuance of the title and the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation.

Doctrine

A petition for reconstitution of a lost or destroyed torrens title must be based on one of the sources enumerated in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26, in the order therein prescribed. The owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title is the primary source, and when it is shown to be genuine, reconstitution may be granted. The genuineness of the owner's duplicate may be established by the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation on the signature of the register of deeds, and by a satisfactory explanation of any discrepancy in the title number. Reconstitution is a summary proceeding that does not settle ownership; it merely restores the original certificate of title. Compliance with the requirements of publication, posting, and notice is jurisdictional.

Disposition

The petition of the Director of Lands was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals granting the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42449 was affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 must follow the order of sources in Section 3, with the owner's duplicate copy as the primary source. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of reconstitution, the effect of a fake title returned by a spouse, and the probative value of a National Bureau of Investigation finding on the genuineness of a title.