LUISITA DEALO NOCHE, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.
LANTION, J.A.C., J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED, and the Registry of Deeds of Quezon Province is hereby ordered to reconstitute the original copy of Original Certificate of Title No. 17687 registered in the name of Ariston Dealo, covering Lot No. 3831 of the Cadastral Survey of Tayabas, entered pursuant to Decree No. 218696 in Cadastral Case No. 22, GLRO Cad. Record No. 611, under the same terms and conditions set forth therein, to be considered as the original copy of the title for all legal intents and purposes, in lieu of the missing title, which is hereby declared null and void, upon finality of this Order and payment of the required legal fees.
As to the prayer for issuance of a second owner’s copy, with the reconstituted Original Certificate of Title No. 17687, Section 16 of Republic Act No. 26 will apply which directs the register of deeds to issue the corresponding owner’s duplicate.
SO ORDERED.
THE FACTS
On 27 May 2009, Petitioner-Appellee Luisita Dealo Noche (Petitioner-Appellee) filed a verified petition for reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 17687, allegedly under the name of Ariston Dealo (her father), before the RTC involving a parcel of land denominated as Lot 3831 located in the Municipality of Tayabas, Quezon containing an area of forty three thousand nine hundred thirty three (43,933) square meters (subject land).[3] Petitioner-Appellee alleged that she inherited the subject land from her parents, but was not able to transfer the title of the same to her name. Petitioner-Appellee learned that the original copy of OCT No. 17687 on file with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon was missing as the same was believed to have been destroyed due to old age and natural causes. Thus, Petitioner-Appellee prayed for the issuance of an order granting her petition for reconstitution of OCT No. 17687.
Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, on 22 July 2009, the RTC set the initial hearing of the petition on 10 December 2009.[4] Thereafter, notices of hearing were published in two (2) successive issues of the Official Gazette.[5] The same were also posted in the following conspicuous places:[6] at the RTC Hall of Justice; at the Provincial Capitol Building of Lucena City; at the Municipal Hall of Tayabas, Quezon; at the Barangay Hall of Barangay Camaysa, Tayabas, Quezon; and on the subject property itself.
The testimony of Petitioner-Appellee, the lone witness, is summarized as follows:[7]
Petitioner Luisita Dealo Noche who testified on the basis of her Judicial Affidavit declared that she inherited the [subject property] from her deceased parents, Ariston Dealo and Milagros Dealo by virtue of a Pagtalikod sa Karapatan, dated March 5, 1985, executed by her mother, Milagros Dealo and her siblings, Grace Dealo and Ariston Dealo, Jr. and Paglilipat sa Sarili ng Ari-arian ng Namatay na may Pagtalikod sa Karapatan, dated April 30, 2009, however, she was not able to transfer the title of the property in her name as the original copy of [OCT] No. 17687 on file with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon Province was considered missing as it has already disintegrated due to old age, while the owner’s duplicate copy thereof kept in her house at Zaballero Subdivvision, Lucena City was also found missing and could no longer be located. Consequently, she executed an Affidavit of Loss attesting to the circumstances surrounding the loss of the owner’s copy of the subject title and she also secured a Certification from the Registry of Deeds of Quezon Province dated May 9, 2008, attesting to the fact that despite efforts exerted by the personnel of said office, the original copy on file could no longer be found from the Book/Volume where it is supposed to be kept and it is believed to have been destroyed by natural causes. Further, petitioner claimed that she is presently in possession of the property covered by [OCT] No. 17687, which is an agricultural land, and the one paying the realty taxes due thereon. (Citations omitted)
In support of her petition, Petitioner-Appellee marked and presented the following evidence:
Exhibits “A” to “F” and submarkings – to prove compliance with the jurisdictional requirements.
Exhibit “G” – Certificate of Live Birth of Ma. Luisita R. Dealo (Petitioner-Appellee).
Exhibit “H” – Death Certificate of Ariston Dealo.
Exhibit “I” – Death Certificate of Milagros R. Dealo.
Exhibit “J” – Pagtalikod sa Karapatan, dated 05 March 1985, executed by Milagros Dealo, Grace Dealo Zaballero and Ariston Dealo, Jr.
Exhibit “K” – Pagtalikod sa Karapatan ng Ari-arian ng Namatay na may Pagtalikod sa Karapatan, dated 30 April 2009, executed by Petitioner-Appellee.
Exhibit “L” to “L-4” – Tax Declaration Nos. 38-032-1104, 38-032-0022, 032-0083, 20-13-044, and 4687.
Exhibit “M” – Certification Issued by the Land Registration Authority dated 02 December 2008.
Exhibit “N” – Certification issued by the Registry of Deeds of Quezon Province dated 09 May 2008.
Exhibit “O” – Certified Technical Description of Lot 3831 Cad-140 issued by the Regional Survey Division of the Bureau of Lands.
Exhibit “P” – Affidavit of Loss dated 27 May 2009 executed by Petitioner-Appellee to prove the fact of loss of the subject title.
Exhibit “Q” – Judicial Affidavit of Petitioner-Appellee.
On 12 July 2013, the RTC rendered the challenged Decision granting the petition and ordering the Registry of Deeds of Quezon to reconstitute the original copy of OCT No. 17687.[8]
Finding the foregoing Decision contrary to law, evidence and jurisprudence, Oppositor-Appellant, through the OSG, filed a Notice of Appeal[9] on 06 August 2013.
Hence, this Appeal.
ISSUE
Oppositor-Appellant raises the following lone assigned error:[10]
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED THE RECONSTITUTION OF OCT NO. 17687 EVEN IF PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVIDE NIGH INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE AS BASIS FOR SAID RECONSTITUTION.
OUR RULING
Oppositor-Appellant is of the position that the documentary evidence submitted by Petitioner-Appellee is insufficient to warrant the reconstitution of OCT No. 17687.[11] According to Oppositor-Appellant, a reading of the Certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Lucena City, Quezon shows that OCT No. 17687 is missing from where it is supposed to be kept and presumed to have disintegrated by natural causes, but the same failed to state: that the said Title has been lost or destroyed; or that it was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed. Oppositor-Appellant further argues that the Certification of the Land Registration Authority merely indicates that Decree No. 218696 was issued on 24 July 1926 regarding Lot No. 3831 (the subject land), but did not provide that OCT No. 17687 was issued under the name Ariston Dealo. In support thereof, Oppositor-Appellant cites Republic v. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas in which the Supreme Court pronounced:[12]
We also find insufficient the index of decree showing that Decree No. 365835 was issued for Lot No. 1499, as a basis for reconstitution. We noticed that the name of the applicant as well as the date of the issuance of such decree was illegible. While Decree No. 365835 existed in the Record Book of Cadastral Lots in the Land Registration Authority as stated in the Report submitted by it, however, the same report did not state the number of the original certificate of title, which is not sufficient evidence in support of the petition for reconstitution. The deed of extrajudicial declaration of heirs with sale executed by Aguinaldo and Restituto Tumulak Perez and respondent on February 12, 1979 did not also mention the number of the original certificate of title but only Tax Declaration No. 00393. As we held in Tahanan Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, the absence of any document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title and the date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of such petition. (Emphasis supplied)
Oppositor-Appellant continues that the tax declarations presented by Petitioner-Appellee cannot be the basis for reconstitution since jurisprudence holds that the same are, at most, only prima facie evidence of possession or a claim of ownership, which is not the issue in reconstitution proceedings.[13] It is also emphasized by Oppositor-Appellant that Petitioner-Appellee admitted in court that she has not seen OCT No. 17687 nor had the same come into her possession.[14] Thus, Oppositor-Appellant submits that Petitioner-Appellee failed to provide sufficient evidence as basis for the petition for reconstitution. Consequently, the RTC erred in granting the same.
We agree.
The reconstitution of a title or deed involves the re-issuance of the copy of the certificate of title purportedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition;15 reconstitution proceedings do not pass upon the ownership of the the land covered by a lost or destroyed title. The purpose therefor is to have the instrument concerned reproduced, after observing the proper legal proceedings, in the same form as it was prior to the occurrence of its loss or destruction.[16]
The law governing reconstitution of certificates of title is Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26. Section 15 thereof provides:[17]
SECTION 15. If the court, after hearing, finds that the documents presented, as supported by parol (sic) 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.
In Republic v. Tuastumban, the Highest Court synthesized the requisites that must be observed before an order granting reconstitution of a title or deed is warranted, in this wise:[18]
1. The certificate of title had been lost or destroyed.
2. The documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
3. The petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest therein.
4. The certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost and destroyed.
5. The description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
After carefully sifting through the evidence on record, this Court finds that Petitioner-Appellee was not able to show that all of the above requisites obtain.
Regarding the first requisite, it is emphasized that the law explicitly requires that the certificate of title concerned is lost or destroyed.[19] The statute is clear, unambiguous, and leaves no room for interpretation. Guided by the latin maxim “verba legis non est recedendum” – from the words of a statute there should be no departure[20] – the said law must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation.[21] In the instant case, however, the Register of Deeds of Lucena City, Quezon Province did not declare that OCT No. 17687 was lost or destroyed, but found that the same was merely missing from where it is supposed to be kept, presumed to have disintegrated, and believed to have been destroyed.[22] Therefore, absent any categorical certification that OCT No. 17687 was lost or destroyed, the first requisite is absent.
Anent the second requisite, that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, R.A. 26 mandates that the sources upon which reconstitution should issue are:[23]
(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.
Here, none of the above was presented by Petitioner-Appellee in support of her petition for reconstitution. First, the tax declarations[24] submitted by Petitioner-Appellee only indicate possession in the concept of an owner, at best.[25] Second, the Technical Description[26] of Lot 3831 Cad-140 of the Regional Survey Division of the Bureau of Lands merely outlines the exact physical location of the subject land. Third, the Report[27] of the Land Registration Authority certifies solely as to the correctness of the said Technical Description.
Moreover, it is underscored that the remaining documents relied on by Petitioner-Appellee failed to indicate the number of the certificate of title and the date when the certificate of title was issued. In fact, the Certification issued by the Land Registration Authority dated 02 December 2008 merely attests that Decree No. 218696 was issued on 24 July 1926 regarding Lot No. 3831 (the subject land), but made no mention if any certificate of title was released pursuant thereto.[28] Furthermore, although the Pagtalikod sa Karapatan ng Ari-arian ng Namatay na may Pagtalikod sa Karapatan[29] dated 30 April 2009 and the Pagtalikod sa Karapatan[30] dated 05 March 1985 (both of which involve OCT No. 17687) mention the number of the certificate of title covering the subject land, the said documents failed to specify the date OCT No. 17687 was issued. Unfortunately for Petitioner-Appellee, these omissions are fatal to her petition for reconstitution of title. We quote Republic v. Lorenzo, which cited Republic v. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas, as follows:[31]
Likewise, the deed of sale purportedly between Antonia Pascua, as seller, and Pedro Fontanilla, as buyer, which involves OCT No. 3980 cannot be relied upon as basis for reconstitution of Torrens certificate of title. An examination of the deed of sale would reveal that the number of the OCT allegedly covering the subject parcel of land is clearly indicated, however, the date when said OCT was issued does not appear in the document. This circumstance is fatal to respondents’ cause as we have reiterated in Republic v. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas that the absence of any document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title and the date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of a petition for reconstitution. (Emphasis supplied) xxx
Anent the fourth requisite, Petitioner-Appellee did not adduce any evidence to prove that OCT No. 17687 was in force at the time it was supposedly lost and destroyed. As a matter of fact, during a hearing in open court, Petitioner-Appellee could not even recall having seen or possessed OCT No. 17687, in this wise:[32]
COURT Q A Q A Q A
Further, that Petitioner-Appellee never came into possession of OCT No. 17687 is strengthened by the fact that the said Title was purportedly missing since the time the Pagtalikod sa Karapatan was executed on 05 March 1985.[33] Verily, since reconstitution presupposes the existence of an original certificate of title which was lost or destroyed, if there is no such original certificate of title, there is actually nothing to reconstitute.[34]
In fine, Petitioner-Appellee failed to prove the existence of all the requisites for reconstitution of a title or deed, the absence of which leaves no basis for the rendering of an order granting the same. Consequently, this Court finds that the RTC erred in granting Petitioner-Appellee’s petition for reconstitution. Thus, the reversal of the challenged Order is warranted.
On a final note, jurisprudence warns that “[trial courts] must also exercise extreme caution in granting [a petition for reconstitution], lest they become unwitting accomplices in the reconstitution of questionable titles instead of being instruments in promoting the stability of our land registration system.”[35] This Court is not unmindful of the rule that, when the evidence is sufficient to grant a petition for reconstitution and that the title or deed sought to be reconstituted was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed, it becomes the mandatory duty of the court to issue an order of reconstitution.36 However, when the evidence of the petitioner is not satisfactory such that the requisite circumstances of reconstitution are absent, as in this case, an order granting a petition for reconstitution of title is improper.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Order dated 12 July 2013 rendered by the RTC, Branch 57 of Lucena City in MISC. CASE NO. 2009-70 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The verified petition for reconstitution filed by Petitioner-Appellee Luisita Dealo Noche is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
De Leon, M.M., Chairperson and Antonio-Valenzuela, N.G., JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Judge Adolfo V. Encomienda (Records, pp. 241-244).
[2] Records, p. 244.
[3] Id. at 2-6.
[4] Id. at 66-67.
[5] Id. at 74.
[6] Id. at 76.
[7] Id. at 242.
[8] Id. at 244.
[9] Id. at 246.
[10] Rollo, p. 31.
[11] See Rollo, pp. 35-40.
[12] G.R. No. 142284, June 8, 2005.
[13] See Republic v. Santua, G.R. No. 155703, September 8, 2008.
[14] TSN dated June 3, 2010, p. 13.
[15] See Heirs of Lozano v. The Register of Deeds, Lingayen, Pangasinan, G.R. No. 166899, August 10, 2006.
[16] See Puzon v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., G.R. No. 139518, March 6, 2001.
[17] An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title Lost or Destroyed, Republic Act No. 26, Section 15 (1946).
[18] G.R. No. 173210, April 24, 2009.
[19] Republic Act No. 26, Section 15.
[20] See Signey v. SSS, G.R. No. 173582, January 28, 2008.
[21] See Enjay, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110240, July 4, 1995.
[22] The Certification dated 09 May 2008 issued by the Register of Deeds of Lucena City, Quezon Province (Records, p. 9) states:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that according to the records on file in this Registry, the original copy of Original Certificate of Title No. OCT-17687, alleged to be covering a parcel of land, Lot No. 3831 of the Cadastral Survey of Tayabas, situated in the Municipality of Tayabas, Province of Quezon, containing an area of FORTY THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE (43,933) SQUARE METERS and registered in the name of ARISTON DEALO, is missing on its Book/Volume where it is supposed to be kept and filed. It is presumed that said title due to old age has already disintegrated and believed to have been destroyed by natural courses. Inspite of this all efforts were still exerted by the Office personnel to locate the said lost or missing title up to present time proved futile. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
[23] Republic Act No. 26, Section 2.
[24] Records, pp. 102-106.
[25] See Arangote v. Spouses Maglunob, G.R. No. 178906, February 18, 2009.
[26] Records, p. 109.
[27] Id. at 196.
[28] The Certification dated 02 December 2008 issued by the Land Registration Authority (Records, p. 10) provides:
TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that after due verification of our “Record Book of Cadastral Lots”, it was found that Lot 3831 of Tayabas Cadastre, Province of Tayabas (now) Quezon, Cadastral Case No. 22, LRC Cadastral Record No. 611 was issued Decree No. 218696 on July 24, 1926 pursuant to the decision rendered thereon.
xxx
[29] Records, p. 8.
[30] Id. at 100.
[31] G.R. No. 172338, December 10, 2012 citing 498 Phil. 570 (2005).
[32] TSN dated June 3, 2010, p. 13.
[33] Records, p. 100.
[34] Republic v. Tuastumban, G.R. No. 173210, April 24, 2009.
[35] Republic v. Heirs of Ramos, G.R. No. 169481, February 22, 2010.
[36] See Republic v. Verzosa, G.R. No. 173525, March 28, 2008.