IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION AND ISSUANCE OF TCT NO. 348500 OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY

In the Matter of Petition for Judicial Reconstitution and Issuance of TCT No. 348500

The Case

This is the case In the Matter of Petition for Judicial Reconstitution and Issuance of TCT No. 348500, an appeal by the petitioner against the Republic of the Philippines from a trial court order dismissing her petition for judicial reconstitution of a lost Torrens certificate of title. The petitioner sought to reconstruct the original copy of her title, which she claimed was destroyed in the fire that razed the Quezon City Hall, using tax records, a sepia film plan, and a technical description. The Republic opposed on the ground that these are not among the sources the law allows. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's cleanest statement of the closed list of sources for reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26, and of the principle that a court may not widen that list by judicial fiat.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed her original petition for judicial reconstitution with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, which set it for hearing and directed publication, posting, and notice to the Office of the Solicitor General, the Land Registration Authority, the Register of Deeds, and the adjoining owners. The Republic opposed, and the Land Registration Authority manifested that the petitioner had not submitted the documents required by its circulars. After the petitioner filed an amended petition with additional documents, the trial court, in a decision dated January 5, 2009, dismissed the petition without prejudice, holding that the documents presented were not among the sources enumerated in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 26 and could not be considered under its catch-all provision. The trial court denied her motion for reconsideration. The petitioner then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Court resolved it in a decision penned by Justice Garcia-Fernandez.

Facts

The petitioner alleged that she and her husband were the registered owners of a parcel of land covered by a Torrens certificate of title, which they had bought from Honorata Cariaso by a deed of absolute sale. She claimed that the original copy of the title, kept on file with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, was among those lost or destroyed in the fire that razed the Quezon City Hall on June 11, 1988, and that her own owner's duplicate was later lost in a flood in November 1998. She executed an affidavit of loss and, in August 2005, petitioned for judicial reconstitution of the original title and the issuance of a second owner's duplicate.

As her bases for reconstitution, she initially offered photocopies of real property tax bills and receipts, a location plan and vicinity map, and a tax declaration with a treasurer's certification. The Republic opposed, and the Land Registration Authority reported that she had not submitted the required certification from the Register of Deeds, the original technical description, and the sepia film plan. Given time to comply, she filed an amended petition attaching the original tax bill and receipt, the original sepia film plan, the original technical description, and a photocopy of the Register of Deeds certification that the original title was lost to fire.

The Republic again opposed, arguing that the tax bill, the sepia film plan, and the tax declaration were not similar in nature to the documents enumerated in the earlier paragraphs of Section 2. The trial court agreed and dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed, invoking a prior decision in which the Supreme Court had supposedly accepted tax payments and possession as sufficient evidence for reconstitution.

Issues

• Whether or not the documents presented by the petitioner, namely the real property tax bill and receipt, the sepia film plan, the technical description, and the Register of Deeds certification, are sufficient and proper bases for the judicial reconstitution of a lost or destroyed original certificate of title under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 26.
• Whether or not the petitioner proved that she is the registered owner of, or has an interest in, the subject property.
• Whether or not the ruling in the prior case invoked by the petitioner applies to her situation.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Republic Act No. 26 provides:

SEC. 2. Original 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, 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 is the very provision the Court construes, and its enumerated sources, read in order, fix the outer limits of what a petitioner may offer.

Ruling

The Court denied the appeal and affirmed the dismissal. On the first issue, it held that the documents presented did not comply with Section 2. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, meaning that general words take their meaning from the specific words that precede them, the Court ruled that the catch-all phrase any other document in paragraph (f) must refer to documents similar in nature to those enumerated in the earlier paragraphs. The sepia plan and technical description are, in the Court's words, merely additional documents that should accompany the petition, and a survey plan or technical description prepared at the instance of a party is self-serving and cannot be considered in that party's favor. The tax declaration and tax bills are likewise not valid bases, because a tax declaration is executed for taxation purposes only and is prepared by the alleged owner himself.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that she is the registered owner or had an interest in the property. She never presented the deed of absolute sale, and the photocopy of the title in her name was neither certified nor authenticated, so it could not be considered as evidence. The tax bills and receipts, moreover, remained in the name of the prior owner, which itself raised a question of ownership.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioner's reliance on the prior case was misplaced. In that case, the petitioner had been able to trace her ownership to her grandfather and to one of the registered owners of the property, a fact absent here. The Court summed up the requirements a petitioner must prove:

that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title; that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest therein; that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost and 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.

Doctrine

Reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 is a special and restrictive proceeding. The sources in Section 2 are a closed and ordered list, and the catch-all in paragraph (f) is read under the principle of ejusdem generis, so that any other document must be similar in nature to the owner's duplicate, the co-owner's or mortgagee's duplicate, a certified copy of the title, or an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent. A survey plan, a sepia film plan, and a technical description are merely additional documents that accompany the petition, not sources of reconstitution, and being prepared at the party's instance, they are self-serving. A tax declaration and tax bills are prepared for taxation purposes only and are not valid bases. Finally, the petitioner bears the burden of proving the five elements the Court listed, beginning with the fact of loss or destruction and the petitioner's ownership or interest, which must be shown by competent, authenticated evidence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the petition for reconstitution.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the catch-all in Section 2, paragraph (f) of Republic Act No. 26 is governed by ejusdem generis, so tax records, survey plans, and technical descriptions can never substitute for the enumerated sources. Examiners use this case to test the closed list of reconstitution sources and the five requisites a petitioner must prove.