REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. RICORDITO N. DE ASIS, JR., RESPONDENT.

Republic versus De Asis

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Republic of the Philippines against Ricordito N. De Asis, Junior, arising from a petition for reconstitution of a lost transfer certificate of title under Republic Act Number 26, the law providing a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title lost or destroyed. The Republic assails the grant of reconstitution, insisting that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction because the jurisdictional publication requirement was not strictly met, and that the trial court ignored a report of the Land Registration Authority showing that the property overlaps other titled lands. The case matters because it fixes the rule that publication in a reconstitution proceeding means actual circulation or release of the Official Gazette, and that the thirty-day period is counted from that release, not from the date printed on the cover.

Procedural History

De Asis filed a verified amended petition for reconstitution before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77. The trial court found the petition sufficient in form and substance, set the initial hearing, directed that the Land Registration Authority be furnished a copy, and ordered publication of the notice in the Official Gazette once a week for two consecutive weeks. After the hearing, the trial court allowed De Asis to present his evidence ex parte, and in its Decision of May 27, 2003, it granted the amended petition.

The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in toto in its Decision of January 26, 2010. The appellate court held that the thirty-day notice should be reckoned from the date of issue of the Official Gazette rather than its actual release, and found that the trial court did not err in giving little credence to the Land Registration Authority report. The Republic's motion for reconsideration was denied in the Resolution of October 1, 2010, hence this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On August 7, 2002, Ricordito N. De Asis, Junior, filed a verified amended petition for reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title Number 8240 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, in the name of his uncle, Lauriano De Asis, covering a lot in Pasong Tamo, Caloocan, Rizal, now in Quezon City, with an area of 30,052 square meters, more or less. He alleged that he purchased the property from his uncle through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 5, 1978, and that the original copy of the title was destroyed by the fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall on June 11, 1988. His source for reconstitution was the owner's duplicate copy of the title in his possession.

The trial court scheduled the initial hearing for January 30, 2003 and ordered publication of the notice in the Official Gazette once a week for two consecutive weeks. The notice was published in the December 23, 2002 and December 30, 2002 issues of the Official Gazette. On January 30, 2003, after finding compliance with the jurisdictional requirements and with no opposition raised, the trial court allowed De Asis to present his evidence ex parte. The Office of the Solicitor General later entered its appearance for the Republic and deputized the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.

The Land Registration Authority submitted a report stating that the technical description of the lot, when plotted, overlaps with two other subdivision plans. The trial court nonetheless granted the petition. On appeal, the Republic pointed out that per the Certificate of Publication of the National Printing Office, the December 30, 2002 issue was officially released only on January 3, 2003, less than thirty days before the January 30, 2003 hearing. The Republic also argued that the trial court erred in disregarding the overlap reported by the Land Registration Authority.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was compliance with the mandatory publication requirement of Republic Act Number 26, considering that the last issue of the Official Gazette was actually released only on January 3, 2003, less than thirty days before the January 30, 2003 hearing.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the amended petition despite the report of the Land Registration Authority that the technical description of the subject property overlaps with other properties.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10 of Republic Act Number 26 provides:

Nothing hereinbefore provided shall prevent any registered owner or person in interest from filing the petition mentioned in section five of this Act directly with the proper Court of First Instance, based on sources enumerated in sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and/or 4(a) of this Act: Provided, however, That the court shall cause a notice of the petition, before hearing and granting the same, to be published in the manner stated in section nine hereof: And, provided, further, That certificates of title reconstituted pursuant to this section shall not be subject to the encumbrance referred to in section seven of this Act.

This provision governs the amended petition because the reconstitution is anchored on the owner's duplicate copy of the title, a source under Section 3(a), and it requires publication in the manner stated in Section 9.

Section 9 of Republic Act Number 26 provides in part:

Thereupon, the court shall cause a notice of the petition 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 the land lies, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing, and after hearing, shall determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require.

This is the jurisdictional requirement of two successive publications at least thirty days before the hearing, which the Court construes strictly.

Section 3 of Republic Act Number 26 provides in part:

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.

This identifies the owner's duplicate copy as the source relied upon by De Asis, which in turn subjects his petition to the publication rules of Section 10 in relation to Section 9.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the publication requirement was not complied with, and that the trial court therefore did not acquire jurisdiction. The Court held that publication means the actual circulation or release of the issue of the Official Gazette on which the notice is printed, not the date of issue reflected on its front cover. The thirty-day period must be reckoned from the actual circulation or release of the last issue. Since the December 30, 2002 issue was released only on January 3, 2003, the publication fell short of the thirty-day period before the January 30, 2003 hearing. The Court stressed that substantial compliance is not enough, because jurisdiction over a reconstitution case hinges on strict compliance with the law. Even a shortfall of only three days cannot be excused. The Court distinguished the Imperial case cited by the Court of Appeals, because there the hearing was set well beyond thirty days from either the date of issue or the date of release, so the requirement was met under either reckoning.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, failed to give due consideration to the report of the Land Registration Authority that the technical description overlaps with other properties. In the interest of diligence and prudence, the trial court should have notified the adjoining lot owners or ordered a resurvey at the expense of De Asis, and should not have simply disregarded the report without affording the Republic and the Authority the opportunity to present further evidence. The Court reminded that reconstitution restores an instrument supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition, and must be granted only upon clear proof that the title sought to be restored had previously existed and was issued to the petitioner.

Doctrine

Jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution of title under Republic Act Number 26 is acquired only upon strict compliance with the requirement of publication of the notice of the petition twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Publication means actual circulation or release of the issue, and the thirty-day period is counted from the actual release of the last issue, not from the date printed on its cover. Substantial compliance is not sufficient, and any defect renders the entire proceedings void for lack of jurisdiction. Reconstitution must be granted only upon clear proof that the title sought to be restored had previously existed and was issued to the petitioner, and courts must exercise caution and vigilance to protect the integrity of the Torrens system against spurious claims.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were reversed and set aside, and the amended petition for reconstitution was dismissed.

Remember This

Publication in a reconstitution case means actual release, and the thirty-day count runs from that release, not from the cover date. Examiners use this case to test strict compliance with jurisdictional publication and the reckoning point for the thirty-day period.