REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ANGEL T. DOMINGO AND BENJAMIN T. DOMINGO, RESPONDENTS.

Republic versus Domingo

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, against Angel T. Domingo and Benjamin T. Domingo. The Republic assails the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the order of the Regional Trial Court granting the Domingos' petition for reconstitution of a lost original certificate of title. The case matters because it draws the dividing line, under Republic Act Number 26, between the two distinct reconstitution procedures — the simpler route under Section 10 in relation to Section 9, and the stricter route under Sections 12 and 13 — and tells us which notice requirements a court must satisfy to validly acquire jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The Domingos filed a petition for reconstitution of the original copy of Original Certificate of Title Number 17472 with the Regional Trial Court, Judicial Region 3, Branch 31, Guimba, Nueva Ecija. In its order dated 31 October 2008, the trial court found sufficient basis for reconstitution and directed the Land Registration Authority to reconstitute the original copy of the title.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Domingos failed to comply with Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act Number 26 because they did not notify the heirs of the Spouses Ramoso and a certain Senen J. Gabaldon. In its decision dated 17 June 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the petition was filed under Section 10, not Sections 12 and 13, and that the notice need only name the interested parties appearing in the certificate of title itself. The Republic then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Angel Casimiro M. Tinio inherited from his sister, Trinidad T. Ramoso, a parcel of land in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, covered by Original Certificate of Title Number 17472 in the names of the spouses Feliciano and Trinidad Ramoso. By a deed of sale dated 22 February 1978, Tinio sold the property to the Domingos and delivered to them the owners' duplicate of the certificate of title.

When the Domingos inquired with the Register of Deeds of North Nueva Ecija about the original copy of the title, the registry could not locate it despite diligent efforts, so the original was deemed lost or destroyed. On 18 August 2006, the Domingos filed a petition for reconstitution with the trial court, expressly invoking Section 10 of Republic Act Number 26 and offering the owners' duplicate in their custody as the source.

The trial court set the petition for hearing and included in the notice the owners of the adjoining lots, the Spouses Ramoso, the Domingos, Tinio, and the concerned government agencies. The names of the heirs of the Spouses Ramoso and of Senen J. Gabaldon did not appear in the owners' duplicate and were not included in the notice. The trial court granted the petition, and the Republic appealed, insisting that the omitted names violated Sections 12 and 13.

Issues

• Whether or not a petition for reconstitution based on the owners' duplicate of the certificate of title is governed by Section 10 in relation to Section 9 of Republic Act Number 26, rather than by Sections 12 and 13.
• Whether or not the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the petition despite the failure to notify the heirs of the Spouses Ramoso and Senen J. Gabaldon.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 26, which lists the sources of reconstitution, provides:

Section 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 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.

The Domingos' source, the owners' duplicate, falls squarely under paragraph (a), which determines the procedure to be followed.

Section 10 of Republic Act Number 26 provides:

Section 10. 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 is the provision that governs the Domingos' petition and supplies the jurisdictional notice requirements.

Section 9 of Republic Act Number 26 provides:

Section 9. A registered owner desiring to have his reconstituted certificate of title freed from the encumbrance mentioned in section seven of this Act, may file a petition to that end with the proper Court of First Instance, giving his reason or reasons therefor. A similar petition may, likewise, be filed by a mortgagee, lessee or other lien holder whose interest is annotated in the reconstituted certificate of title. 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. The notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title, the name of the registered owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, the location of the property, and the date on which all persons having an interest in the property must appear and file such claim as they may have.

This provision fixes what the notice must contain, including that the interested parties to be named are those appearing in the certificate of title itself.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is governed by Section 10 in relation to Section 9, not by Sections 12 and 13. Republic Act Number 26 provides two procedures depending on the source of the petition. Section 10 in relation to Section 9 covers sources under Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b) and 4(a), while Sections 12 and 13 cover sources under Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and 3(f). Since the source here was the owners' duplicate under Section 2(a), the Court held that the requirements under Sections 12 and 13 do not apply. As the Court put it:

In Puzon, the Court held that, the requirements under Sections 12 and 13 do not apply to all petitions for judicial reconstitution, but only to those based on any of the sources specified in Section 12; that is, sources enumerated in Section 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and/or 3(f) of this Act.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. For a petition under Section 10 in relation to Section 9, the notice must be published in two successive issues of the Official Gazette and posted at the main entrances of the provincial building and municipal hall at least thirty days before the hearing, and it must state the number of the certificate of title, the name of the registered owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in the certificate of title, the location of the property, and the date for filing claims. The notice in this case contained all these matters. The Court stressed that the interested parties to be named are only those appearing in the certificate of title, and the owners' duplicate did not contain the names of the heirs of the Spouses Ramoso or of Senen Gabaldon.

Doctrine

Reconstitution under Republic Act Number 26 follows two tracks. Petitions based on the owners' duplicate, the co-owner's, mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate, and the analogous sources under Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b) and 4(a) are governed by Section 10 in relation to Section 9. Petitions based on the secondary sources under Sections 2(c) through 2(f) and 3(c) through 3(f) are governed by Sections 12 and 13. The requirements of Sections 12 and 13 are irrelevant to a petition sourced from the owners' duplicate. For jurisdictional validity under Section 10 in relation to Section 9, the notice must be published and posted as required and must state the five matters enumerated in Section 9, and the interested parties to be named are those appearing in the certificate of title itself.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had sustained the trial court's order granting reconstitution in favor of the Domingos.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a petition for reconstitution based on the owners' duplicate falls under Section 10 in relation to Section 9 of Republic Act Number 26, so Sections 12 and 13 do not apply. Examiners use this case to test whether you can classify the source of reconstitution and identify the correct notice requirements that confer jurisdiction.