G.R. No. 241890. May 03, 2021
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. AVELINO MANANSALA, HEIR OF THE LATE FEL M. MANANSALA, REPRESENTED BY ESMERALDO M. MANANSALA, RESPONDENT.
CAGUIOA, J:
dated December 7, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor City,
Branch 19 (RTC) in LRC Case No. 8843-2014-29 while the CA Resolution
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
The CA Decision narrates the antecedents as follows:
[Respondent Avelino M. Manansala (respondent)] is the sole
heir of Fel Manansala (Fel). During his lifetime, Fel owned two x x x
parcels of land situated in the Municipality of Carmona, Province of
Cavite and covered by TCT[7] Nos. T-4773 and T-2822 respectively x x x.x x x x
On June 25, 1997, Fel died leaving the mass of his property, which
included the subject lots, to [respondent]. [Respondent] executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of his father’s estate, adjudicating upon himself sole ownership over the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. T-4773 and T-2822.
He submitted a copy thereof in the Office of the Registry of Deeds [for
the Province of Cavite] [(RD)] for registration, which the [RD] refused
because [respondent] failed to present the original copies of TCT Nos. T-4773 and T-2822. [Respondent] presented a Certification,
to prove that the subject TCTs were among those burned during the fire
that razed the building which housed the [RD] sometime in 1959.On January 27, 2014, [respondent] designated his son, Esmeraldo as his
attorney-in-fact. Esmeraldo filed the instant petition for the judicial
reconstitution of TCT Nos. T-4773 and T-2822 before the [RTC], on the basis of the owner’s duplicate copies in his possession.On May 26, 2014, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) rendered its initial Report (First Report) [issued by Roselle Antonette P. Lazo-Favis, Assistant Chief of the Reconstitution Division in the LRA[8]], addressed to the [RTC] which pertinently stated, to wit:
x x x
2. Examination and verification of the photocopies of TCT Nos. T-4773
and T-2822 reveal the following observations/findings[,] to wit:
that the same were issued under LRC Record No. 53673 pursuant to Decree
No. 754698 in the Registry of Deeds of Cavite. Verification of
our records, however, reveals that LRC Record No. 53673 was issued
Decree No. 717402 for a parcel of land situated in Batangas City[;] (Emphasis supplied)
Cavite were embraced in Cad. Case 12, Cad. Rec. No. 2166, however, no
Cadastral Book is on file at the Cadastral Decree Section, this
Authority. Both lots when plotted on MIS G321 appear to be equivalent of
Lots [1 & 2], respectively of Plan Psu-108561, GLRO Rec. No.
14623[;]3. From the foregoing, it appears that both titles did not exist
in the Registry of Deeds of Cavite, because the information contained
therein are not in accordance with our records. (Emphasis supplied)[Respondent] submitted his counter-evidence in refutation of the
aforesaid findings and asked the LRA for a replotting and re-evaluation
of the same. Pursuant thereto, the LRA issued a subsequent Report, dated February 6, 2015 (Second Report) [issued by Roselle Antonette P. LazoFavis, Assistant Chief of the Reconstitution Division in the LRA[9]], which reversed its previous observation thus:In reference to the 2[6] May 2014 Report of this
Office involving the above-mentioned case which petitions for the
reconstitution of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-4773 and T-2822
purportedly registered in the name of Fel M. Manansala, this Authority, upon replotting and reevaluation thereof, makes the following findings:The technical descriptions of Lots 1131 &
1132, both of the Cadastral Survey of Carmona, [C]ad. 285, situated in
the Municipality of Carmona, Province of Cavite, appearing on the
reproductions of owner’s duplicate copies of Transfer Certificate[s] of
Title Nos. T-4773 and T-2822 were found correct after examination and
due computation. Said technical descriptions when plotted on
Municipal Index Sheet No. G321, do not appear to overlap previously
plotted/ decreed properties in the aforesaid area. (Emphasis supplied)The [RTC] summoned the Chief of the Reconstitution and Docket Division
of the LRA to explain the two (2) conflicting LRA Reports but said
officer failed to appear, despite due notice. The government prosecutor
deputized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) participated in
the trial of the case but did not present controverting evidence.Ruling of the RTC
[The RTC] rendered its assailed Decision[10] [dated December 7, 2015], the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner
[(herein respondent)] having proven by preponderance of evidence [his]
allegations in the petition[,] the same is hereby GRANTED.The Office of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite is
hereby ordered to reconstitute the original copies of Transfer
Certificate[s] of [Title] No[s]. T-4773 and T-2822 registered in the
name of Fel M. Manansala using as basis the owners’ duplicate copies
thereof subject to encumbrances as may be subsisting therein, upon
payment of the corresponding legal fees.The lost original cop[ies] of the Transfer Certificate[s] of [Title]
No[s]. T-4773 and T-2822 are hereby declared null and void and of no
force and effect.SO ORDERED.
Unsatisfied with the said ruling, [petitioner], through the OSG, filed [an] appeal [before the CA].[11]
Ruling of the CA
The CA in its Decision[12] dated December 7, 2017 found the appeal without merit. The dispositive portion thereof states:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Appeal is DISMISSED. The December 7, 2015 Decision of the RTC of Bacoor City, Branch 19, in LRC Case No. 8843-2014-29 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[13]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution[14] dated September 5, 2018.
Hence the present Petition. Respondent filed his Comment[15] dated March 29, 2019. Petitioner filed its Reply[16] to the Comment dated August 19, 2019.
The Issue
The Petition essentially raises the issue: whether the CA erred in
affirming the December 7, 2015 RTC Decision, which granted the petition
for reconstitution of the alleged lost and destroyed original TCT Nos.
T-4773 and T-2882 based on the conflicting First and Second Reports issued by Roselle Antonette P. Lazo-Favis, Assistant Chief of the Reconstitution Division of the LRA.
The Court’s Ruling
The Petition has merit.
At the outset, it is well to reiterate the quantum of evidence required
in the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate of title. In
this respect, Dela Paz v. Republic[17] instructs that:
Time and time again, we have cautioned the lower courts
against the hasty and reckless grant of petitions for reconstitution. In
such cases, it is the duty of the court to carefully scrutinize and
verify all supporting documents, deeds, and certifications. In fact, we
have warned the courts in reconstitution proceedings of the tampering of
genuine certificates of title and the issuance of fake ones – a
widespread occurrence that has seriously threatened the stability of our
Torrens system. It is most unfortunate that our courts have been, at
times, unwitting accomplices to these transactions and easy targets for
corruption.Reconstitution is the restoration of the instrument or title allegedly
lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. Its only purpose
is to have the title reproduced, after observing the procedure
prescribed by law, in the same form they were when the loss or
destruction occurred. The process involves diligent circumspect
evaluation of the authenticity and relevance of all the evidence
presented for fear of the chilling consequences of mistakenly issuing a
reconstituted title when in fact the original is not truly lost or
destroyed[, or when an original title does not even exist in the name of
the petitioner or the person from whom the petitioner derives his
purported claim or right.]Henceforth, it is imperative that a proper standard be set in evaluating
the probative value of the documentary evidence. Having such a standard
would guide our courts accordingly in granting the reconstitution of a
certificate of title, and would serve as a yardstick in determining
whether trial court judges have grossly violated their judicial duty to
warrant the imposition of administrative sanctions.The established legal principle in actions involving land registration
is that a party must prove its allegations not merely by a preponderance
of evidence, but by clear and convincing evidence. Evidence is clear
and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm
belief or conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. It
is indeterminate, being more than preponderance, but not to the extent
of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt in criminal
cases. Appropriately, this is the standard of proof that is required in
reconstitution proceedings.[18]
Given that the required quantum of evidence to reconstitute a
certificate of title is not mere preponderance of evidence, but clear
and convincing evidence producing in the mind of the trier of facts a
firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be
established, the RTC erred in granting the petition for reconstitution
based on mere preponderance of evidence and the CA erred in affirming
the RTC Decision based on the same quantum of evidence.
The records bear out that only Esmeraldo Manansala (Esmeraldo),
attorney-in-fact of respondent Avelino Manansala (Avelino), was
presented as witness before the RTC and who testified that: he is the
son of Avelino; his father is the only heir of the late Fel M. Manansala
(Fel), who died on June 25, 1997, and left behind two parcels of land
situated in Carmona, Cavite (with respective areas of 520,638 square
meters and 96,235 square meters and covered by TCT No. T-4773 and TCT
No. T-2822); as the only heir, Avelino executed an Extra-Judicial
Settlement of Estate of his father and adjudicated upon himself the said
parcels of land; Avelino tried to register the Extra-Judicial
Settlement of Estate with the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite
(RD), but its registration was denied on the ground that the original
copies of said titles were among those burned during the fire that razed
the Office of the RD in June 1959; a Report dated May 26, 2014 (First
Report) was issued by the LRA; to rebut said report, a Certification
dated December 10, 2013 from the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) stating that the subject properties were verified to be
within the “Alienable and Disposable Land under Project No. 8 of
Carmona, Cavite per Land Classification Map 2589 certified on December
10, 1965, the survey plan under PCS-04-010644 approved on October 30,
1996, the accompanying Lot Data Computation describing the properties
identified as Lot 1131 and Lot 1132, showing that they are located in
Carmona, Cavite, and a Vicinity Plan/Plot issued by DENR-LMS, Region IV
(Calabarzon), showing the location of Lot 1131 and Lot 1132 in Carmona,
Cavite were presented; given the said findings of the DENR, Avelino
requested the LRA for a re-plotting and re-evaluation of the subject
parcels of land; and a Report dated February 6, 2015 (Second Report) was subsequently issued by the LRA. Subpoena ad testificandum
was sent to the Chief of the Reconstitution/Docket Division and/or any
authorized representative of the LRA, but no one appeared despite
notice.[19]
Aside from the two LRA Reports, Esmeraldo, who was respondent’s only
witness, identified the following documents: (a) Special Power of
Attorney, (b) Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate, (c) Death Certificate
of Avelino, (d) Owner’s Duplicate Copies of TCT Nos. T-4773 and T-2882,
(e) Certification issued by DENR Regional Office IV-A, (f) Survey Plan,
(g) Certification issued by the RD, and (h) DENR Region IV Calabarzon
Vicinity Plan/Plot.[20]
Based on the CA Decision, it is evident that the CA relied primarily on the Second
Report of the LRA in finding the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. T-4773
and TCT No. T-2822, which respondent presented before the RTC, to be
authentic, and as such, could therefore be the source of respondent’s
petition for reconstitution. Pertinently, the CA Decision states:
In the present case, [respondent’s] quest for judicial reconstitution x x x is anchored on his owner’s duplicate cop[ies] of TCT Nos. T-4773 and T-2822. It bears stressing that [petitioner] assails [their] authen[ti]city, only because of the existence of the First Report which the LRA eventually corrected in its Second Report.
x x x x
It is well to note that upon replotting of the lots described in TCT Nos. T-4773 and T-2822, the LRA found that there [was] no overlapping of boundaries with existing registered lands as previously mentioned in its First Report. Conformably with the foregoing, the LRA issued its Second Report after realizing that its previous findings were erroneous. The existence of the Second
Report did not in any way impair the authenticity of [respondent’s]
duplicate cop[ies] of the subject TCTs, but in fact buttressed the same.[21]
Unfortunately, the reliance by the CA on the Second Report is
erroneous. As will be explained subsequently, both LRA Reports have no
probative value. The same holds true with respect to the certifications
and other documents issued by the DENR and the RD. Besides, the RD
certification is equivocal and cannot be relied upon as proof that the
original TCT No. T-4773 and TCT No. T-2822 were destroyed when the
office of the RD was burned in 1959. The RD certification simply states:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE PROVINCIAL CAPITOL BUILDING IN
CAVITE CITY WAS RAZED TO THE GROUND [O]N JUNE 7, 1959 HOUSING THE OFFICE
OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS.[22]
In Republic v. Galeno[23] (Galeno),
the Court made these pronouncements on the nature of certifications
issued by government officials, which have been adduced through a third
person, and their probative value:
A scrutiny of the evidence marked and formally offered by respondent before the court a quo
shows that the former failed to prove that there was sufficient basis
to allow the correction of the area of the subject property in OCT No.
46417 from 20,948 square meters to 21,248 square meters.Records reveal that respondent offered in evidence the following documents: (a)
the Certification issued by a certain Althea C. Acevedo (Acevedo),
Engineer IV, Chief of the Technical Services Section of the Office of
the Regional Technical Director, Land Management Services of the DENR in
Iloilo City, which states that “the true and correct area of [L]ot
2285, Cad. 246 Dingle Cadastre is 21,928 square meters;” (b) the
technical description of Lot No. 2285, a copy of which was certified by
Ameto Caballero (Caballero), Chief of the Surveys Division, while
another copy was certified correct by Acevedo; and (c) the
approved subdivision plan of Lot No. 2258, certified by Rogelio M.
Santome (Santome), Geodetic Engineer; Alfredo Muyarsas (Muyarsas), Chief
of the Regional Surveys Division, and Edgardo R. Gerobin (Gerobin),
OIC, Regional Technical Director of the Land Management Services, DENR.
On the strength of these pieces of evidence, respondent sought a
reconciliation of the area of the subject property with the records of
the DENR.Unfortunately, the foregoing documentary evidence are not sufficient to
warrant the correction prayed for. The Court cannot accord probative
weight upon them in view of the fact that the public officers who issued
the same did not testify in court to prove the facts stated therein.In Republic v. Medida, the Court held that certifications of the Regional Technical Director, DENR cannot be considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, holding that:
Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence as follows:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents referred
to in Section 19(a), when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced
by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer
having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy x x x.Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:
“Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence. – Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein. All other public documents are
evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to
their execution and of the date of the latter.”The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications
[do] not fall within the class of public documents contemplated in the
first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The certifications do not
reflect “entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a
public officer,” such as entries made by the Civil Registrar in the
books of registries, or by a ship captain in the ship’s logbook. The
certifications are not the certified copies or authenticated
reproductions of original official records in the legal custody of a
government office. The certifications are not even records of public
documents. x x x (Emphases supplied)As such, sans the testimonies of Acevedo, Caballero, and the
other public officers who issued respondent’s documentary evidence to
confirm the veracity of [their] contents, the same are bereft of
probative value and cannot, by their mere issuance, prove the facts
stated therein. At best, they may be considered only as prima facie evidence of their due execution and date of issuance but do not constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.In fact, the contents of the certifications are hearsay because
respondent’s sole witness and attorney-in-fact, Lea Galeno Barraca, was
incompetent to testify on the veracity of their contents, as she did not
prepare any of the certifications nor was she a public officer of the
concerned government agencies. Notably, while it is true that the public
prosecutor who represented petitioner interposed no objection to the
admission of the foregoing evidence in the proceedings in the court
below, it should be borne in mind that “hearsay evidence, whether
objected to or not, has no probative value unless the proponent can show
that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence
rule,” which do not, however, obtain in this case. Verily, while
respondent’s documentary evidence may have been admitted due to the
opposing party’s lack of objection, it does not, however, mean that they
should be accorded any probative weight. The Court has explained that:The general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible.
However, the lack of objection to hearsay testimony may result in its
being admitted as evidence. But one should not be misled into thinking
that such declarations are thereby impressed with probative value.
Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence.
Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not cannot be given credence
for it has no probative value.Besides, case law states that the “absence of opposition from government
agencies is of no controlling significance because the State cannot be
estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents.
Neither is the Republic barred from assailing the decision granting the
petition for reconstitution [or correction of title, as in this case]
if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition
has no merit.” Moreover, “in civil cases, the party having the burden of
proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff
having to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the
weakness of the defendant’s.”[24]
The Court held in Galeno that the respondent therein did not
present any competent evidence to prove the true and correct area of the
subject property therein to warrant a correction of said respondent’s
certificate of title, and it dismissed the petition filed by said
respondent.
The above pronouncements of the Court in Galeno are equally applicable in the instant case. The First and Second
Reports of the LRA as well as the certifications of the DENR and the RD
do not fall within the class of public documents under Section 23, Rule
132 of the Rules since they do not reflect entries in public records
made in the performance of a duty by a public officer, are not certified
copies or authenticated reproductions of original official records in
the legal custody of a government office, and are not even records of
public documents. As such, without the testimonies of the public
officers who issued respondent’s documentary evidence or were the
official custodians thereof to confirm the veracity of their contents or
the existence of the original in their custody and those presented in
court are faithful reproductions of the original, they are bereft of
probative value and cannot, by their mere issuance, prove the facts
stated therein.
In fact, the contents of the LRA Reports as well as the DENR and the RD
certifications are hearsay because respondent’s sole witness and
attorney-in-fact, Esmeraldo, was incompetent to testify on the veracity
of their contents, as he did not prepare any of the certifications or
reports nor was he the public officer of the concerned government
agencies, who was the custodian of the documents adverted to in the
certifications and reports or who had personal knowledge of their
contents.
While it is true that the public prosecutor who represented petitioner
interposed no objection to the admission of the said documents in the
proceedings before the RTC, hearsay evidence, whether objected to or
not, has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the
evidence falls within the accepted exceptions to the hearsay rule, which
do not obtain in the instant case. While respondent’s documentary
evidence may have been admitted due to petitioner’s lack of objection,
it does not, however, mean that said documentary evidence should be
accorded any probative weight. Besides, as reiterated by the Court in Galeno,
the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its
officials or agents, especially when the decision granting the petition
for reconstitution has no merit on the basis of the law and the evidence
on record. Moreover, in reconstitution of title cases, the party having
the burden of proof must produce clear and convincing evidence.[25]
Since the pieces of documentary evidence, which purportedly emanated
from the LRA, DENR and RD, have no probative value, being hearsay, there
is no competent evidence to support respondent’s petition for
reconstitution. Therefore, his petition should be dismissed.
The Court has stressed in Republic v. Sanchez[26] (Sanchez)
that the LRA report is an indispensable requirement in the
reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title pursuant to
LRA Circular No. 35 and the Court’s Administrative Circular No. 7-96, viz.:
Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ finding, the Second Report
is not a “collateral attack” on TCT No. 252708. Circular No. 35
requires the submission of an LRA Report in all proceedings to
judicially reconstitute lost or destroyed Torrens certificates of title.[27]
Indeed, to “x x x prevent duplication of titles, x x x and [the]
irregular reconstitution of lost or destroyed land certificates of title
based on unauthorized sources,” this Court issued Administrative
Circular No. 7-96 (“Circular 7-96”) on 15 July 1996 reminding trial
court judges and clerks of courts “under pain of disciplinary sanctions,
x x x to comply strictly” with, among others, Circular No. 35. Trial
courts hearing reconstitution petitions under RA 26 are thus duty-bound
to take into account the LRA’s Report. When the trial court considered
the authentic Second Report in issuing the 17 July 1998 Resolution, it
merely complied with Circular 7-96.True, petitioner submitted the Second Report after the period to appeal,
or seek relief against, the 28 October 1996 Order had lapsed. However,
this is no bar for the trial court to consider the Second Report.
Petitioner was not at fault when it did not submit its Report before the
trial court resolved LRC Case No. Q-96-8296. Petitioner explained that
respondents failed to submit the documents petitioner had requested in
its letter of 6 August 1996. But more than this, courts have inherent
power to correct fatal infirmities in its proceedings, especially if, as
here, the flaw was intentionally brought about by a party who employed
deceit in misleading the trial court.[28]
To hold otherwise would render courts helpless in maintaining the
integrity of its proceedings and correspondingly embolden parties to
make a mockery of judicial rules. The trial court merely exercised such
inherent power in the higher interest of justice.[29]
Since the First and Second Reports of the LRA have no
probative value, the dismissal of the petition for reconstitution is in
order for the failure of the RTC to comply with the directive to require
the LRA to submit its report and to require the attendance of the
responsible LRA official, under pain of contempt, to authenticate and
testify on the report, especially in this case where there is apparent
conflict between the Reports submitted by the LRA. As observed by the
Court in the aforequoted Sanchez, the trial court has the inherent power to control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice,[30] and such inherent power of control is enforceable by its power of contempt.
Also, LRA Circular No. 35 requires that the RD shall submit “written
findings” of the status of the title sought to be reconstituted. Again,
in Sanchez, the Court stated that a mere certification that the
original TCT was among those destroyed in a particular fire is
insufficient, viz.:
x x x Paragraph 12 of Circular No. 35 requires that the
Register of Deeds shall submit “written findings” on the status of the
title sought to be reconstituted. No such “written findings” exist in
the records of this case. What respondents submitted was a Certification
dated 14 December 1994 that the original of TCT No. 252708 was among
those destroyed in the 1988 fire. This falls short of what paragraph 12
of Circular 35 requires.[31]
Thus, the RD Certification: “THE PROVINCIAL CAPITOL BUILDING IN CAVITE
CITY WAS RAZED TO THE GROUND [O]N JUNE 7, 1959 HOUSING THE OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS”[32]
clearly falls short of the LRA Circular No. 35 requirement. This is
further ground to dismiss respondent’s petition for reconstitution.
Moreover, the Court is convinced that the existence of the conflicting First and Second
Reports of the LRA, assuming them to be authentic and with probative
value, is sufficient proof that respondent has not adduced clear and
convincing evidence to sustain his petition for reconstitution. The First
Report, if its contents are to be believed, cast serious doubt on the
authenticity of respondent’s owner’s duplicate TCTs, to wit:
2. Examination and verification of the photocopies of TCT
Nos. T-4773 and T-2822 reveal the following observations/findings[,] to
wit:2.1 It appears on both titles that the same were issued under LRC Record
No. 53673 pursuant to Decree No. 754698 in the Registry of Deeds of
Cavite. Verification of our records, however, reveals that LRC Record
No. 53673 was issued Decree No. 717402 for a parcel of land situated in Batangas City.2.2 Lots 1131 and 1132 Cad. 285 of Carmona, Cavite were embraced in Cad.
Case 12, Cad. Rec. No. 2166, however, no Cadastral Book is on file at
the Cadastral Decree Section, this Authority. Both lots when plotted on
MIS G321 appear to be equivalent of Lots 1 & 2, respectively, of
Plan Psu-108561, GLRO Rec. No. 14623[.]3. From the foregoing, it appears that both titles did not exist in the
Registry of Deeds of Cavite, because the information contained therein
are not in accordance with our records.[33]
The First Report plainly indicates that, upon verification of the
LRA records, Decree No. 717402, not Decree No. 754698 (the one
appearing on the purported owner’s duplicate TCTs in Fel’s name), was
issued in LRC Record No. 53673, and said Decree covered a parcel of land
situated in Batangas City, not Cavite. Since said Decree covered land
located in Batangas City, the First Report concluded that the
purported two TCTs in Fel’s name, which are the subject of the
reconstitution petition, could not have existed in the RD.
The plain text of the First Report of the LRA already puts in
serious doubt the veracity and authenticity of Fel’s purported TCTs. And
such doubt has not been erased by the issuance of the Second Report because the latter was silent on the questionable Decree from which the purported TCTs of Fel emanated or originated.
The Second Report did not correct the First Report as erroneously found by the CA.[34] The Second Report, on the assumption that it has probative value and its contents are true, made the following purported findings:
The technical descriptions of Lots 1131 & 1132, both of
the Cadastral Survey of Carmona, Cad. 285, situated in the Municipality
of Carmona, Province of Cavite, appearing on the reproductions of
owner’s duplicates of Transfer Certificate[s] of Title Nos. T-4773 and
T-2822 were found correct after examination and due computation. Said
technical descriptions when plotted on Municipal Index Sheet No. G321,
do not appear to overlap previously plotted/decreed properties in the
aforesaid area.[35]
The foregoing is even consistent with 2.2 of the First Report, although the pertinent Cadastral Book was not on file in the LRA’s Cadastral Decree Section, to wit:
2.2. Lots 1131 and 1132 Cad. 285 of Carmona, Cavite were
embraced in Cad. Case 12, Cad. Rec. No. 2166, however, no Cadastral Book
is on file at the Cadastral Decree Section, this Authority. Both lots
when plotted on MIS G321 appear to be equivalent of Lots 1 & 2,
respectively, of Plan Psu-108561, GLRO Rec. No. 14623[.][36]
The Second Report did not confirm the existence of the
certificates of title sought to be reconstituted but merely attested to
the correctness of the technical descriptions stated therein and when
plotted on said municipal index sheet, the technical descriptions did
not appear to overlap previously plotted or decreed properties in the
area. Such technical descriptions may subsequently be used as basis for
the inscription of the technical descriptions in the reconstituted
titles, but they do not prove the prior valid existence of respondent’s
TCTs. This is consistent with the observation made by the Court in Republic v. Tuastumban,[37] to wit:
x x x The Blue Print of Advance Plan and Technical
Description of Lot No. 7129 also do not prove the prior valid existence
of the certificate of title as they are mere descriptions of Lot 7129.
The LRA report also does not confirm the existence of the certificate of
title but merely attests to the correctness of the plan and technical
description which may subsequently be used as basis for the inscription
of the technical description in the reconstituted title. x x x[38]
Thus, the conclusion of the CA – “The existence of the Second
Report did not in any way impair the authenticity of [respondent’s]
duplicate cop[ies] of the subject TCTs, but in fact buttressed the same”[39] – proceeds from a misapprehension of the contents thereof, assuming them to be correct.
Since the Second Report merely deals with the correctness of the
technical descriptions reflected in respondent’s duplicate TCTs, the
findings of the LRA in the First Report that: (1) the inscription
in both titles that they were issued under LRC Record No. 53673
pursuant to Decree No. 754698 in the RD does not correspond to the
records of the LRA because, upon verification of its records, LRC Record
No. 53673 was issued Decree No. 717402 for a parcel of land situated in
Batangas City; and (2) both titles did not exist in the RD because the
information contained therein are not in accordance with the records of
the LRA, remain unrebutted by the Second Report.
Given this apparent conflict in the LRA Reports, it behooved the RTC to
require an explanation from the responsible LRA official and to totally
discard them in the absence of such explanation or in case that it was
not satisfied therewith.
Since the First Report of the LRA, assuming the same to be
authentic and with probative value, puts in serious doubt the
authenticity of respondent’s owner’s duplicate TCTs, the OSG correctly
pointed out that the petition for reconstitution falls under Section
3(f) and not Section 3(a) of Republic Act (RA) No. 26,[40]
and non-compliance with the requirements under Section 13 in relation
to Section 12 of RA No. 26 for the petition for reconstitution under
Section 3(f) ousted the RTC of its jurisdiction over the case, thereby
rendering the latter’s Decision a nullity.[41]
RA No. 26 is the law governing the reconstitution of lost or destroyed
Torrens certificates of title. Section 3 of RA No. 26 provides:
SECTION 3. 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;
(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) The deed of transfer or other document. on file in the registry of
deeds, containing the description of the property, or an authenticated
copy thereof, showing that its original had been registered, and
pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer 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 general jurisdictional requirements are provided in Section 9 of RA No. 26, to wit:
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, lessees 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. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the
publication and posting of the notice: Provided, however, That
after the expiration of two years from the date of the reconstitution of
a certificate of title, if no petition has been filed within that
period under the preceding section, the court shall, on motion ex parte
by the registered owner or other person having registered interest in
the reconstituted certificate of title, order the register of deeds to
cancel, proper annotation, the [e]ncumbrance mentioned in section seven
hereof.
For petitions for TCT reconstitution under Section 3(a) and/or Section
3(b), Section 10 of RA No. 26 must be also observed, to wit:
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.
For petitions for TCT reconstitution based on Section 3(c), 3(d), 3(e)
and/or 3(f), Sections 12 and 13 of RA No. 26, which are also
jurisdictional requirements, provide:
SECTION 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources
enumerated in sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and/or
3(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper Court of First
Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having an
interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain, among
other things, the following: (a) that the owner’s duplicate of the
certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no co-owner’s,
mortgagee’s or lessee’s duplicate had been issued, or, if any had been
issued, the same had been lost or destroyed; (c) the location, area and
boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and description of the
buildings or improvements, if any, which do not belong to the owner of
the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or
improvements; (e) the names and addresses of the occupants or persons
in possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining properties
and all persons who may have any interest in the property; (f) a
detailed description of the encumbrances, if any, affecting the
property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments
affecting the property have been presented for registration, or, if
there be any, the registration thereof has not been accomplished, as
yet. All the documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be
introduced in evidence in support of the petition for reconstitution
shall be attached thereto and filed with the same: Provided, That
in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources
enumerated in section 2(f) or 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be
further be accompanied with a plan and technical description of the
property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration
Office, or with a certified copy of the description taken from a prior
certificate of title covering the same property.SECTION 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 the 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.
Given the different legal requirements depending upon the source of the TCT reconstitution, the Court observed in Republic v. Susi:[42]
The judicial reconstitution of a Torrens title under RA 26
means the restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or
destroyed Torrens certificate attesting the title of a person to
registered land. The purpose of the reconstitution is to enable, after observing the procedures prescribed by law,
the reproduction of the lost or destroyed Torrens certificate in the
same form and in exactly the same way it was at the time of the loss or
destruction.RA 26 provides two procedures and sets of requirements in the
reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title depending on
the source of the petition for reconstitution. Section 10 in
relation to Section 9 provides the procedure and requirements for
sources falling under Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3 (b), and 4(a). On the
other hand, Sections 12 and 13 lay down the procedure and requirements
for sources falling under Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d),
3(e), and 3(f). Thus, before the court can properly act, assume, and
acquire jurisdiction or authority over the petition and grant the
reconstitution prayed for, petitioner must observe the above procedures
and requirements prescribed by the law.In numerous cases, the Court has held that the noncompliance with the
prescribed procedure and requirements deprives the trial court of
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the case and,
consequently, all its proceedings are rendered null and void. The
rationale underlying this rule concerns the nature of the conferment in
the trial court of the authority to undertake reconstitution
proceedings. In all cases where the authority to proceed is conferred by
a statute and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory, the
same must be strictly complied with, or the proceedings will be utterly
void. As such, the court upon which the reconstitution petition is filed
is duty-bound to examine thoroughly the same, and review the record and
the legal provisions laying down the germane jurisdictional
requirements.x x x x
In cases where the LRA challenges the authenticity of the applicant’s
purported owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the reconstitution
petition should be treated as falling under Section 3(f) of RA 26, and
the trial court should require compliance with the requisites under
Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26.In particular, the reconstitution petition and the published and posted
notice of hearing in compliance with the October 13, 2005 Order failed
to show that notices were sent to the other occupants, possessors, and
persons who may have an interest in, or who have buildings or
improvements on the land covered by the certificate of title sought to
be reconstituted, as well as the owners of adjoining properties.Jurisprudence is replete with cases underscoring the indispensability of actual
and personal notice of the date of hearing of the reconstitution
petition to actual owners and possessors of the land involved in order
to vest the trial court with jurisdiction thereon. If no notice of
the date of hearing of a reconstitution case is served on a possessor or
one having interest in the property involved, he is deprived of his day
in court and the order of reconstitution is null and void.Thus, in light of the LRA’s report of the subsistence of other
certificates of title over the subject land, it behooved the RTC to
notify the registered land owners of the reconstitution proceedings, in
observance of diligence and prudence; however, it failed to act
accordingly. But more than this, courts have the inherent power to
correct fatal infirmities in its proceedings in order to maintain the
integrity thereof.In view of the failure to comply with the requirements of Sections 12
and 13 of RA 26, particularly, on the service of notices of hearing on
the registered owners and/or actual possessors of the land subject of
the reconstitution case, the RTC, did not acquire jurisdiction over the
case, and all proceedings held thereon are null and void. That being
said, the Court finds it unnecessary to delve on the other matters
raised in the petition.[43] (Emphasis in the original)
Consequently, if the conflicting LRA Reports are accorded any probative value and given that the First
Report challenges the authenticity of respondent’s purported owner’s
duplicate TCTs, the reconstitution petition should have been treated as
one falling under Section 3(f) of RA No. 26 and the RTC should have
required respondent to comply with the requisites under Sections 12 and
13 of RA No. 26. Since respondent did not comply therewith, the petition
for reconstitution should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
As a final note, the Court is perplexed why it was only in March 2014
that the petition for reconstitution was filed by respondent. Based on
the copies of the TCTs sought to be reconstituted, they were supposedly
issued on August 1, 1952[44] and June 11, 1956[45]
when Fel was still single. The fire which razed the RD happened in
1959. Fel allegedly died on June 25, 1997, but apparently no petition
for reconstitution was filed by him. From 1959 when the purported
destruction by fire of the purported original TCTs, it took respondent
around 55 years to file the reconstitution petition. The Court expects a
credible explanation from respondent.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision
dated December 7, 2017 and the Resolution dated September 5, 2018
rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107267 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Avelino M. Manansala’s petition for reconstitution of the original
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-4773 and T-2822 of the Registry of
Deeds for the Province of Cavite under the name of Fel M. Manansala in
LRC Case No. 8843-2014-29 before the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor
City, Branch 19 is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C. J., (Chairperson), Carandang, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 12-35, excluding Annexes.
[2] Id. at 41-49. Penned by
Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Ramon R.
Garcia and Maria Filomena D. Singh concurring.
[3] Stated as December 7, 2016 in the Decision, rollo, p. 41.
[4] Rollo, pp. 51-53.
[5] Thirteenth (13th) Division and Former Thirteenth (13th) Division.
[6] Rollo, pp. 74-79. Penned by Presiding Judge Matias M. Garcia II.
[7] Transfer Certificate/s of Title.
[8] Annex “A” of the Petition, rollo, pp. 36-37.
[9] Annex “B” of the Petition, id. at 38-39.
[10] Supra note 6.
[11] Id. at 42-44.
[12] Supra note 2.
[13] Id. at 48.
[14] Supra note 4.
[15] Id. at 118-140.
[16] Id. at 147-155.
[17] G.R. No. 195726, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 34.
[18] Id. at 45-47.
[19] Rollo, pp. 75-78.
[20] Id. at 17.
[21] Id. at 46-47.
[22] Annex “H” to the Petition, id. at 64.
[23] G.R. No. 215009, January 23, 2017, 815 SCRA 191.
[24] Id. at 196-199. Citations omitted.
[25] Republic v. Galeno, supra note 23, at 199.
[26] G.R. No. 14608l, July 17, 2006, 495 SCRA 248.
[27] Citing Circular 35 which pertinently provides:
3. Within five (5) days from receipt of the petition, the Clerk of Court
shall forward to this Commission a signed copy of the petition together
with the necessary requirements as prescribed in Secs. 4 and 5 hereof;
x x x x
8. Upon receipt of the petition, the Records Section of this Commission
shall, after the same is recorded in a separate book used exclusively
for reconstitution cases, forward all the papers to the Clerks of Court
Division for processing. If the Chief, Clerks of Court Division, finds
that the requirements as called for by these guidelines have not been
complied with, or that the plan and technical description as submitted
by the petitioner are deficient or defective, the Court shall be
immediately informed thereof so that action on the petition may be held
in abeyance until after the requirements shall have been complied with.
9. Thereafter, the Chief, Clerks of Court Division, shall forward the
entire records of the case, properly foldered, to the Head Geodetic
Engineer of the Division of Original Registration for examination and
verification.
10. After the processing and approval of the plan and technical
description pursuant to Administrative Order No. 13, dated July 7, 1969
and the verification and examination of the documents to be used as the
source of the reconstitution shall have been accomplished, the Head
Geodetic Engineer shall return the entire records of the case, together
with his written comments and/or findings, to the Chief, Clerks of Court
Division, for the preparation of the corresponding report.
11. All papers, together with the Report, shall be forwarded to the
Chief, Docket Division, the Commission, who shall transmit the same to
the proper Regional Trial Court, thru the Records Section.
12. The Register of Deeds, upon receipt of a copy of the petition and
notice of hearing, shall verify the status of the title-whether valid
and subsisting at the time of the alleged loss; whether or not another
title exists in the said office covering the same property; and as to
the existence of transactions registered or pending registration which
may be adversely affected thereby. He shall submit his written findings
to the Court on or before the date of initial hearing of the petition.
13. The Court, after considering the report of the Land Registration
Commission and [the] comments and findings of the Register of Deeds
concerned, as well as the documentary and parol evidence presented by
the petitioner, may take such action on the petition as it may deem
proper.
[28] Citing Section 5(g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court which provides: “Inherent powers of courts.
– Every court shall have power: x x x (g) To x x x control its process
and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice[.]” We
further explained in Santiago v. Vasquez (G.R. Nos. 99289-90, 27
January 1993, 217 SCRA 633, 648): “Courts possess certain inherent
powers which may be said to be implied from a general grant of
jurisdiction, in addition to those expressly conferred on them. These inherent powers are such powers as are necessary for the ordinary and efficient exercise of jurisdiction; or essential to the existence, dignity and functions of the courts, as well as to the due administration of justice;
or are directly appropriate, convenient and suitable to the execution
of their granted powers; and include the power to maintain the court’s
jurisdiction and render it effective in behalf of the litigants.”
(Emphasis supplied; internal citations omitted)
[29] Republic v. Sanchez, supra note 26, at 267-269.
[30] Id. at 269.
[31] Id. at 270.
[32] Rollo, p. 64. Annex “H” to the Petition.
[33] Rollo, p. 36. Annex “A” to the Petition.
[34] The CA Decision states: “Conformably with the foregoing, the LRA issued its Second Report after realizing that its previous findings were erroneous.” Id. at 46-47.
[35] Rollo, p. 38. Annex “B” to the Petition.
[36] Id. at 36.
[37] G.R. No. 173210, April 24, 2009, 568 SCRA 600.
[38] Id. at 616-617.
[39] Rollo, p. 47.
[40] AN ACT PROVIDING A
SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS CERTIFICATES OF
TITLE LOST OR DESTROYED, September 25, 1946.
[41] Rollo, pp. 25-29.
[42] G.R. No. 213209, January 16, 2017, 814 SCRA 397.
[43] Id. at 407-413. Citations omitted.
[44] Rollo, p. 66. Annex “J” to the Petition.
[45] Id. at 65. Annex “I” to the Petition.