CONSORCIA VILLAVIEJA-VILLANUEVA, REPRESENTED BY HER AIF LUZ C. ARAULLO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Villavieja-Villanueva versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is the story of Consorcia Villavieja-Villanueva, acting through her attorney-in-fact Luz C. Araullo, against the Republic of the Philippines. She asked the court to cancel an old decree of registration covering a parcel of land in Sibalom, Antique, to issue a new decree in its place, and to issue the corresponding original certificate of title. The Republic opposed, insisting that the proper remedy was a petition for reconstitution under the special law for lost or destroyed Torrens titles. The case matters because it draws a clean line between two very different situations: a title that once existed and was lost, which calls for reconstitution, and a title that was never shown to have existed at all, which calls for cancellation of the decree and issuance of a new one.

Procedural History

Consorcia filed her petition before the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Antique, sitting in its cadastral jurisdiction. The trial court granted the petition. It approved and adopted the Commissioner's Report, directed the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority to cancel the old decree, and directed the preparation of a new decree and of the original and duplicate copies of the corresponding original certificate of title, to be sent to the Register of Deeds of Antique for entry. The Republic appealed, assigning as its sole error that the trial court granted the petition in violation of the special procedure for reconstitution. The appeal went straight to the Supreme Court, which denied it and affirmed the trial court.

Facts

The land is Lot Number 655 of the Sibalom Cadastre in Antique, containing more than one hundred thirteen thousand square meters. By a decision of the Court of First Instance of Antique in a cadastral case, Consorcia was declared one of the adjudicatees of the lot. Her siblings predeceased her without issue, so she adjudicated their shares to herself, and she became the only surviving adjudicatee. She possessed the property but had no personal knowledge whether a certificate of title had ever been issued for it.

When she inquired with the Registry of Deeds of Antique, the office certified that it could not ascertain whether a title had been issued, because its records were either lost or destroyed during the last World War or when the Provincial Capitol burned in December 1957. The Land Registration Authority in Manila certified that a decree of registration had indeed been issued for the lot in February 1937, but that a copy of the decree was not among the salvaged decrees in its possession, and it presumed the copy was lost or destroyed during the war.

Following a report of the Land Registration Authority suggesting that the presumption of regular performance of official duty could be overcome by categorical certifications, Consorcia obtained a further certification from the Registry of Deeds stating that it had no record whether an original certificate of title was issued, and a certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office stating that no patent was issued for the lot. She also proved that the notice of hearing in the cadastral proceeding was published in the Official Gazette. On these facts the trial court cancelled the decree and ordered a new one issued, and the Republic appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for cancellation of the decree and re-issuance of a new decree and original certificate of title should have complied with the special procedure for the reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certificates of title.
• Whether or not the trial court correctly granted the cancellation of the old decree and the issuance of a new decree and certificate of title on the evidence presented.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 26, the law providing a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title lost or destroyed, provides:

Sec. 2. Original certificate 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 has 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 bears on the case because it presupposes an original certificate of title that was already issued and later lost or destroyed, a premise the evidence here did not establish.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal was without merit. Section 2 of Republic Act Number 26 applies only where it is proven that a certificate of title had already been issued and was subsequently lost or destroyed. The Court stressed that the section refers exclusively to lost or damaged original certificates of title. Here, the certification of the Registry of Deeds did not categorically state that a title had been issued; it showed uncertainty as to the issuance or existence of the title itself, not merely as to whether it was lost or damaged. The Court quoted the certification:

This is to certify that this Office cannot ascertain whether there was a title issued or not to Lot No. 655 of the Cadastral Survey of Sibalom, Antique for our records were either lost and/or destroyed during the last World War or when the Provincial Capitol was burned last December, 1957.

The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Alipoon versus Court of Appeals, that reconstitution is limited to lost or destroyed Torrens certificates of title on file with the Register of Deeds. Since there was no title to speak of, the special procedure had no application.

On the second issue, the Court held that what was certain was only the issuance of a decree over the lot, and that the decree was lost or destroyed. As to the original certificate of title, there was no sufficient and established basis to declare that one was issued. The Court noted the report of the Land Registration Authority, which recommended that if the non-issuance of the certificate of title could convincingly be shown to overcome the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, the court may order the cancellation of the previously issued decree and the re-issuance of a new one in the name of the same decreed owner. The categorical certifications from the Registry of Deeds and from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office, together with the certificate of publication, overcame that presumption. The trial court's resolution was therefore in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

Doctrine

The special procedure for reconstitution under Republic Act Number 26 applies only to an original certificate of title that has already been issued and was subsequently lost or destroyed. It does not apply where no certificate of title is shown ever to have been issued.

Where only the decree of registration is proven to have been issued and later lost or destroyed, and the non-issuance of the original certificate of title is convincingly shown so as to overcome the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, the court may order the cancellation of the old decree and the re-issuance of a new decree in the name of the same decreed owner, followed by the issuance of the corresponding certificate of title.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court's resolution cancelling the old decree and directing the issuance of a new decree and the corresponding original certificate of title in the name of the decreed owners.

Remember This

Memorize this line: reconstitution presupposes a title that once existed and was lost, so where no title is shown ever to have been issued, the remedy is cancellation of the decree and issuance of a new one, not reconstitution. Examiners use this case to test whether you can distinguish reconstitution under Republic Act Number 26 from the cancellation and re-issuance of a decree, and to test your grasp of the presumption of regularity and how categorical certifications overcome it.