REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND NORMA VARGAS CONJARES REPRESENTED BY ESTER TAMAYO, RESPONDENTS.

This petition for review on certiorari, instituted by the
Republic of the Philippines,
assails the decision, dated 24
February 1992, of respondent appellate court, affirming that of the
court a quo, which orders the reconstitution of a Transfer
Certificate of Title (“TCT”) in favor of private respondent.

On 21 August 1989,
private respondent Norma Vargas Conjares, through her
attorney-in-fact Ester Tamayo, filed a petition with
the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”), Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 17,
of Cavite City,
for reconstitution of the original and owner’s duplicate of TCT No. T-6583 of
the Register of Deeds for the province
of Cavite.

The late Benita Soriano and Juan Vargas
were the alleged registered owners of a parcel of land (Lot
1139-B of the subdivision plan Psd-37865), situated in Tanza.
Cavite,
with an area of twenty five thousand four hundred sixty five (25,465) square
meters, covered by TCT No. T-6583 of the Registry of Deeds for the province
of Cavite.
Private Respondent Norma Vargas Conjares acquired, on
02 November 1982, the
property by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition executed among the
heirs of Benita Soriano. The owner’s duplicate copy
of TCT No. T-6583 was said to have been lost in the course of the transfer of Conjares and her family from their former residence to their
new address at Tandang Sora,
Quezon City.
All efforts to find the TCT proved to be futile. Tamayo’s
inquiries with the Office of the Register of Deeds regarding the status of the
original file copy of TCT No. T-6583 likewise produced negative results. Presumably,
the title was among the records destroyed when the Old
Provincial Capitol
Building, which then housed the
Office of the Register of Deeds, was razed by fire on 07 June 1959. Private respondent submitted, among
other papers, a copy of the subdivision plan Psd-37865, with the corresponding
technical description of Lot 1139-B, shown to have been
approved by the Director of Lands on 04
June 1953. The subject parcel appeared to have been declared for
taxation purposes in the name of Benita Soriano.

After trial, the RTC granted the petition. It accordingly
adjudged, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be well-taken, the Court
hereby grants the same and orders the Register of Deeds of Cavite
Province, after petitioner’s payment of the prescribed legal fees, to
reconstitute the original of TCT No. T-6583 in the name of Benita Soriano on the basis of plan Psd-37865 and the
corresponding technical description of Lot 1139-B (Exh. F and I) duly approved by the Land Registration
Authority; and to issue in favor of the petitioner a corresponding new owner’s
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-6583, hereby declaring as null and void the missing
original file copy and the old owner’s duplicate copy lost by the petitioner.
The reconstituted original and duplicate copies shall be given like faith and
credit as the ones lost and shall be regarded as such for all legal intents and
purposes.

“SO ORDERED.”^[1]

The Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the Philippines,
herein petitioner, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals mainly on the
thesis that since the required publication for the initial hearing on the
petition had not been met, the RTC could not be said to have acquired
jurisdiction over the case. Petitioner observed that private respondent merely
submitted to the court a certificate of publication issued by the National
Printing Press. The two issues (30
October 1989 and 06
November 1989) of the Official Gazette, however, where the notices
supposedly appeared, were not presented in Court. In any case, petitioner
averred, the certificate of publication indicated that the 06 November 1989 issue of the Official Gazette
was released for circulation only on 14
November 1989, or merely twenty-one (21) days prior to the initial
hearing on 06 December 1989.

On 24 February 1992,
respondent appellate court decided thusly:

“The Certificate of Publication issued by the Director of the
National Printing Press Office, stated that the order of the court a quo, dated August 22, 1989, was published in Volume 85 Nos.
44 and 45, October 30, and November 6,
1989 issues of the Official Gazette.

“The November 6, 1989
issue was released for circulation on November
14, 1989, and although the second issue was released for
circulation on November 14, 1989,
22 days prior to the scheduled date of initial hearing on December 6, 1989, short of the 30 day requirement
of publication, there is substantial compliance with the law. The first issue
dated October 30, 1989 was
released for publication 30 days prior to the initial hearing.

“It must be noted that the purpose of the publication of the
notice of the petition for reconstitution in the Official Gazette, is to
apprise the whole world that such petition has been filed. The publication of
the second notice of initial hearing 22 days prior to the date of the scheduled
hearing is sufficient compliance, in order to notify the parties interested
thereto, that such petition for reconstitution of title has been filed.

“x x
x                         x
x x                             x x x

“Petitioner, having substantially complied with the
requirements of Section 13 of R. A. 26, no reversible error was committed by
the court a quo in granting the petition.

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Order appealed from
is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

“IT IS SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Hence, the instant petition.

We rule for the Republic.

Section 13, Republic Act No. 26^[3]
provides:

“SEC. 13. The court shall cause a notice of the petition,
filed under the preceding section, to be published, at the expense of the
petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be
posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal
building of the municipality or city in which he land is situated, at least
thirty days prior to the date of hearing. The court shall likewise cause a copy
of the notice to be sent, by registered mail or otherwise, at the expense of
the petitioner, to every person named therein whose address is known, at least
thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Said notice shall state, among other
things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, if known, the
name of the registered owner, the names of the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, the owners of the adjoining properties and all
other interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the property,
and the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and
file their claim or objections to the petition. The petitioner shall, at the
hearing, submit proof of the publication, posting and service of the notice as
directed by the court.”

In a number of cases,^[4]
this Court has already laid down the rule that the requirements of Republic Act
No. 26 are indispensable and must be strictly complied with. In Register of
Deeds of Malabon vs. Regional Trial Court,^[5]
we held that the publication of the notice of hearing in the Official Gazette
at least thirty (30) days prior to the initial hearing of a petition for
reconstitution is essential to confer jurisdiction upon the court. The rule was
reiterated in the recent case of Republic of the Philippines
vs. Court of Appeals and the Philippine National Bank,^[6]
where this Court, in denying a similar petition for reconstitution of title,
said:

“The jurisdictional requirement of publication of a petition
for reconstitution of title, refers to the actual publication of the notice of
initial hearing of the petition in two successive issues of the Official
Gazette (with the required posting and notice by registered mail or otherwise
to specified persons) and its release for
circulation at least thirty (30) days before the scheduled hearing (Zuniga
vs. Hon. Vicencio, 153 SCRA 720). The purpose of such
publication is to apprise the whole world that such a petition has been filed
and that whoever is minded to oppose it for good cause may do so within thirty
(30) days before the date set by the court for hearing the petition. It is the
publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the
case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it (Register of
Deeds of Malabon vs. RTC of Malabon,
M.M., Branch 170, 181 SCRA 788).

“The Certificate of Publication revealed that the August 28,
1989 Supplement issue of the Official Gazette was released for circulation on
October 13, 1989, which was only seventeen (17) days before the scheduled
hearing set by the court on October 30, 1989. Clearly, the jurisdictional
requirement of publication in accordance with law had not been met for the law
specifically requires that the ‘court shall cause a notice of the petition to
be published at the expense of the petitioner x x x at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing x x x.‘ (Sec. 13, R.A. No. 26.)

“x x
x             x x x                 x x x“

To the same effect is our most recent pronouncement
in Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Delfina Dolor,
G.R. No. 100995, 14 September 1994.

Accordingly, we have no other recourse than to grant in this case
at bench the Republic’s opposition and to similarly set aside, for want of
jurisdiction, the decision of the court a quo and that of the
appellate court which affirmed it.

WHEREFORE, the
decision of respondent Court of Appeals, dated 24 February 1992, and the order of reconstitution, dated 07 March 1990, of the Regional Trial
Court of Cavite (Branch 17), are hereby SET ASIDE.
Costs against private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

Bidin, J., on leave.

^[1] Rollo, pp. 39-40.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 35-36.

^[3]
An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens
Certificate of Title Lost or Destroyed.

^[4]
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 218 SCRA 778; Director of Lands vs. Court of
Appeals, et al., 102 SCRA 370; Caltex, et al. vs.
CIR, et al., 23 SCRA 492.

^[5]
181 SCRA 788.

^[6]
218 SCRA 773, 779-780.