REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (NOW COURT OF APPEALS), AND PRINCESS EMME ATIK KIRAM, RESPONDENTS.

Republic versus Intermediate Appellate Court

The Case

This is the case of Republic versus Intermediate Appellate Court, with Princess Emme Atik Kiram as private respondent. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, challenged before the Supreme Court a judicial order granting reconstitution of an allegedly lost or destroyed original certificate of title covering more than one thousand hectares of riceland in Sulu. The case matters because it fixes, in the strongest terms, the jurisdictional character of the notice requirements under the reconstitution law, and because it warns courts against becoming unwitting accomplices in the proliferation of fake titles.

Procedural History

The private respondent filed a petition for reconstitution of title before the then Court of First Instance of Sulu, sitting at Jolo, now the Regional Trial Court. The Solicitor General interposed no opposition, and the trial court, on the strength of the private respondent's evidence, issued an order granting reconstitution. The Solicitor General appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in full. The Republic then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in January 1988.

Facts

Three undivided lots in Tiptipon, Panamao, Sulu, with a total area of 1,024 hectares of riceland, were allegedly covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-133 in the name of Sultan Jamalul Kiram, who died in 1936. The private respondent, a niece of the late Sultan, claimed that the original certificate on file with the Register of Deeds of Sulu was destroyed when a fire gutted that office in February 1974, and that the owner's duplicate copy was lost in the same misfortune.

In October 1979, she went to the Court of First Instance of Sulu to seek judicial reconstitution. She presented, among other things, the sheriff's return of service, a certificate of publication in the Official Gazette, survey plans and technical descriptions, and tax declarations. She also offered a copy of Act No. 3430, which reserved certain public lands in Sulu with the usufruct to the Sultan of Sulu and his heirs, and Proclamation No. 1530, which reserved certain parcels in Panamao, Talipao and Tiptipon for resettlement under the Department of Agrarian Reform. Her theory was that the Sultan acquired the properties through these land grants.

The trial court granted the petition, and the appellate court affirmed. Before the Supreme Court, the Republic pressed three grounds: lack of proper publication, absence of proof that the certificate was in force at the time of its alleged loss, and failure to comply with Republic Act No. 26.

Issues

• Whether or not the private respondent complied with the publication, posting, and notice requirements of Republic Act No. 26, and whether or not noncompliance deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.
• Whether or not the private respondent sufficiently proved that Original Certificate of Title No. P-133 existed and was in force at the time of its alleged loss.
• Whether or not Act No. 3430 and Proclamation No. 1530 are sufficient bases for reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26.
• Whether or not the absence of opposition by the Solicitor General relieved the trial court of the duty to scrutinize the evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26 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 municipality or city in which the land is situated, at the provincial building and of the municipal building 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.

This provision supplies the jurisdictional requirements whose noncompliance the Court found fatal to the petition.

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-owners, 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 documents which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

This provision lists the sources of reconstitution in a fixed order, and it is the catch-all paragraph (f) that the private respondent invoked through the two land-grant measures.

Section 12 of Republic Act No. 26 provides:

SEC. 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 of 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 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.

This provision sets the specific contents of the petition, which the Court found the land-grant measures did not satisfy.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled for the Republic. It was undisputed that the notices of hearing were never posted on the main entrances of the provincial and municipal halls of the locality. The Court held that this mode of publication is a jurisdictional requirement, and that failure to comply confers no jurisdiction upon the court. Neither was there any showing that the adjacent owners or other interested parties were actually notified, which likewise tainted the petition with a jurisdictional defect. Publication in the Official Gazette is only one requirement; the law also demands posting on the main entrance and actual service upon owners of adjacent lands. The Court refused to apply the presumption of performance of duty, because the sheriff's order directing the station commander to post the notices was no proof that posting was in fact done. As the Court put it, the fiction must yield to fact.

On the second issue, the Court found the evidence insufficient. The private respondent claimed that both the original and the duplicate certificates were lost, and she relied on doubtful sources. The Court reminded courts to take the utmost caution that the petition and its supporting evidence can stand judicial scrutiny. The absence of opposition from the Solicitor General did not relieve the trial court of the duty to convince itself that the evidence was substantial enough to warrant reconstitution.

On the third issue, the Court held that neither Act No. 3430 nor Proclamation No. 1530 confers title on any party. The catch-all reference to any other document in Section 2(f) must be read as referring to similar documents previously enumerated, under the principle of ejusdem generis, meaning of the same kind. The two measures are not of that kind, and they do not contain the specifics required by Section 12. The private respondent had to show that her predecessor actually availed himself of the land grants. Proclamation No. 1530 does not even name Sultan Kiram, and Act No. 3430 dates back to 1928, so the properties could have passed through successive transfers. There was also no showing that Original Certificate of Title No. P-133 stood in the Sultan's name, and no showing that she first sought the prior documents in the statutory order and failed to find them.

Doctrine

First, the requirements of publication in the Official Gazette, posting on the main entrances of the provincial and municipal buildings, and notice to adjacent owners and interested parties under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26 are jurisdictional. Noncompliance nullifies the decree of reconstitution, and the applicant cannot rely on the presumption of performance of duty; the law itself requires the applicant to submit proof of posting.

Second, judicial reconstitution of title partakes of a land registration proceeding, so notice must follow the letter of the law.

Third, the catch-all source in Section 2(f) is governed by ejusdem generis, meaning it covers only documents of the same kind as those enumerated before it, and the documents must be resorted to in the order given, only in the absence of those preceding.

Fourth, the failure of the Solicitor General to oppose does not dispense with the court's duty to satisfy itself that the evidence is substantial.

Disposition

The Court reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of the Intermediate Appellate Court, dismissed the petition for reconstitution of title, and imposed no costs. The Republic won.

Remember This

Memorize this line: posting and notice under Republic Act No. 26 are jurisdictional, and the fiction of performance of duty yields to fact. Examiners use this case in land registration and special proceedings questions on reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens titles, especially on compliance with Section 13 and on the ejusdem generis reading of Section 2(f).