498 Phil. 570
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision[1] dated February 29, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 56966 which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City[2] granting reconstitution of title for Lot No. 1499 in the name of Tirso Tumulak, married to Engracia Pongasi.
In an Order dated September 6, 1995, the trial court set the initial hearing of the petition on February 12, 1996.[5] Notices of hearing were published in two successive issues of the Official Gazette[6] and also posted[7] in conspicuous places in the Provincial Capitol Building of Cebu City, the Lapu-Lapu City Hall and the barangay where the property was situated, and the Lapu-Lapu Public Market. The Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City,[8] the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority,[9] the Director of the Bureau of Lands,[10] and the Office of the Solicitor General[11] in Manila were also furnished copies of the notice of hearing.
- That Petitioner Severiana Gacho, is single, Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of Pleasant Homes, Labangon, Cebu City;
- That she is the owner, by purchase, of a portion of Lot No. 1499 of the Opon Cadastre, situated in Barangay Babag, Municipality of Opon (now Lapu-Lapu City) described and bounded as follows --
NW., by a provincial Road; by Lot 1492, owned by Filomena Palugot,All adjacent owners are residents of Barangay Babag, Lapu-Lapu City, with no house numbers.
NE., by Lot 1492, owned by Melecio Tumulak;
SE., by Lot 1500, owned by Laureano Tumulak;
AREA – 5,409 square meters, more or less;- That the said Lot No. 1499, above-described, was owned by Tirso Tumulak, married to Engracia Pongasi, both now deceased, which was adjudged to them by virtue of a decision, dated March 31, 1929, rendered in the above-entitled registration case, copy of which decision is hereto attached and marked as Annex "A";
- That pursuant to the said decision (Annex "A"), Decree 365835 was issued to said Lot 1499, in the name of said Tirso Tumulak, married to Engracia Pongasi, but which decree was not salvaged from the last World War, but its existence appears in Cadastral Records, a copy of a page therein is hereto attached and marked as Annex "B";
- That pursuant to said Decree No. 565855, (sic) an Original Certificate of Title has been issued to Lot No. 1499 in the name of said Tirso Tumulak, married to Engracia Pongasi;
- That the owner's duplicate copy of the said Original Certificate of Title issued to Lot No. 1499, has been lost during the last World War; and its copy on file in the office of the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City, was also either lost or destroyed during the said last World War, as shown in a certificate issued by the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City, copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex "C";
- That no co-owner's copy of said certificate of title lost has been issued to a co-owner, mortgagee, or lessee;
- That no deed or any kind of involuntary document affecting said Lot No. 1499 has ever been registered, or pending registration in the office of the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City;
- That the land Lot No. 1499 is not or has never been the subject of any Court litigation;
- That your Petitioner, having purchased a portion of said Lot No. 1499 is initiating this Petition for reconstitution for the reason that she wants her portion to be issued a certificate of title in her name, but could not do so, if the lost original certificate of title which was lost during the last World War, be reconstituted first; . . .
- That attached hereto is the approved plan of the land, consisting of a tracing cloth plan, hereto attached marked as Annex "D", blue print plan, as Annex "D-1", and its approved technical description marked as Annex "E", as additional basis for the reconstitution of the said lost certificate of title of Lot No. 1499; and deed of conveyance in favor of petitioner marked as Annex "F".[4]
(i) Xerox copy of the Decision dated March 31, 1929 in Exp. Cad. No. 17, Record No. 946 (Exhibit "I").On January 13, 1997, the Land Registration Authority submitted a Report[14] signed by Benjamin M. Bustos, its Reconstituting Officer & Chief, Reconstitution Division, as follows:
(ii) Index of decrees, (Exhibit "J").
(iii) Deed of Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs with Sale dated February 12, 1979 (Exhibit "K").
(iv) Affidavit of Conchita Oyao dated February 22, 1996 (Exhibit "L").
(v) Certification from the Register of Deeds, Lapu-Lapu City, dated June 9, 1995 (Exhibit "M").
(vi) Sketch plan of Lot No. 1499 (Exhibit "N").
(vii) Certified Xerox copy of the technical description of Lot No. 1499 (Exhibit "N-1").
On March 11, 1997, the trial court rendered its decision as follows:REPORT
COMES NOW the Land Registration Authority and to the Honorable Court respectfully reports that:
(1) The present petition seeks the reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title No. (N.A.), allegedly lost or destroyed and supposedly covering Lot 1499, Opon Cadastre, situated at the Municipality of Opon, Province of Cebu.(2) From Book 38 of the "Record Book of Cadastral Lots", on file at the Cadastral Decree Section, this Authority, it appears that Decree No. 365835 was issued for Lot 1499 on October 28, 1929 in Cadastral Case No. 17, GLRO Cad. Record No. 946, copy of said decree, however, is no longer available in this Authority.(3) The plan and technical description of Lot 1499, Opon Cadastre were verified correct by this Authority to represent the aforesaid lot and the same have been approved under (LRA) PR-16366 pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 26.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing information anent the property in question is respectfully submitted for consideration in the resolution of the instant petition, and if the Honorable Court, after notice and hearing, finds justification pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 26 to grant the same, the plan and technical description having been approved, may be used as basis for the inscription of the technical description on the reconstituted certificate. Provided, however, that in case the petition is granted, the reconstituted title being an original certificate should be made subject to a first lien in favor of the National Government to guarantee the payment of the special taxes assessed pursuant to Section 18 of Act 2259, as amended, and to a lien in favor of E. Bunagan Surveying Co. to guarantee the payment of the costs of cadastral survey and monumenting pursuant to Act 3327, as amended, unless the same has previously been cancelled; and provided, further that no certificate of title covering the same parcel of land exists in the office of the Register of Deeds concerned.
After a thorough examination of all the evidence, the Court is of the belief that the allegations in the petition have been sufficiently established and that therefore the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for.Petitioner Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its notice of appeal with the trial court and the records were forwarded to the Court of Appeals. In its appellant's brief, petitioner alleged that the trial court erred:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the Court hereby grants the petition and renders judgment directing the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to reconstitute the title for Lot No. 1499 in the name of Tirso Tumulak, married to Engracia Pongasi, which reconstituted title must conform strictly with the technical description of the lot (Exhibit "N-2").
SO ORDERED.[15]
In granting the petition for reconstitution on the basis of index of decree, sketch plan, certification, among other documents, which documents are non-acceptable and insufficient bases for reconstitution under RA 26.[16]On February 29, 2000, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed decision affirming the judgment of the trial court. It disposed petitioner Republic's appeal in this wise:
The appeal lacks merit.Hence, the instant petition for review wherein petitioner Republic raises the following issues:
Under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 26, the following are the acceptable sources for reconstitution of an original certificate of title:
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-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 has 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.
Appellant contends that the enumerated documents acceptable as evidence of ownership are either issued by or registered in the Registry of Deeds, and thus should only be the ones to be considered as official sources recognizing ownership of an applicant in a reconstitution case, but that they are not among those presented herein. However appellant neglected to mention that petitioner had presented the Decision of the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de la Prov. de Cebu in EXP Cat. No. 17 entitled "El Gobierno De Las Islas Filipinas, peticionario contra Enemesia Acaso et al., reclamantes", Record, No. 946 dated March 31, 1929, a certified copy of which had been admitted in evidence as Exh. "I", found on p. 4 of the Record stating Lote No. 1499, -- a favor de Tirso Tumulak, casado con Engracia Pongasi, as well as the Cadastral Record which contains the annotation for Decree No. 365835 for Lot No. 1499 marked Exhibit "J" and "J-1" found on page 5 of the Record. The authenticity and due execution of the foregoing documents marked Exhibit "I" and "J" have not been questioned, hence deemed admitted.
There is sufficient evidence showing how ownership had been transferred over Lot No. 1499 as afore-stated; Concepcion Tumulak was the uncontested only heir of Tirso Tumulak. In a Deed of Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs with Sale (Exhibit "K", Record, p. 10) Aguinaldo and Restituto Perez, heirs to the intestate estate of Concepcion Tumulak, sold the 901 square meters of Lot No. 1499 to the petitioner Severiana Gacho. It is clear that petitioner was able to show valid title over the property in question (Esso Standard Eastern Lab. vs. Lim, 123 SCRA 465).
There is ample basis therefore to sustain reconstitution ordered by the court a quo considering that it was also shown by a certification of the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City that the Original Certificate of Title of Lot No. 1499 had been lost or destroyed during the last Global War (Exhibit "M", Record, p. 6).[17]
Respondent Gacho submitted her Comment and petitioner filed a Reply. Parties filed their respective memoranda.I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMNG THE DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO WHICH GRANTED RECONSTITUTION ON THE BASES ALONE OF A XEROX COPY OF A PAPER CAPTIONED "DECISION" (BUT WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ONE), AN ENTRY IN THE INDEX OF DECREES, SKETCH PLAN, CERTIFICATIONS, TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION AND DEED OF SALE, WHICH DOCUMENTS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE SOURCES FOR RECONSTITUTION UNDER RA 26.II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO GRANTING RECONSTITUTION OF AN ALLEGEDLY LOST CERTIFICATE OF TITLE DESPITE THE DEARTH OF EVIDENCE ON THE PREVIOUS ISSUANCE OF SAID CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
Sec. 2. Original Certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:The Court of Appeals relied on a one page, two-liner Decision dated March 31, 1929 as well as the index of decree which contained the annotation for Decree No. 365835 for Lot No. 1499 in affirming the decision of the trial court granting respondent's petition for reconstitution. These documents would naturally not fall under Sec 2(a) to (e) of R.A. No. 26 but may be considered under Sec 2(f) of R.A. No. 26, as any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title. However, we find that they are not enough bases for reconstitution of lost original certificate of title.
(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 has 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.
Significantly, only a certain Geodetic Engineer certified that the copy of the decision attached to the petition was a true copy of the same. It was not established that the Geodetic Engineer is the public officer who is in custody thereof. Section 7, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence provides:ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA
ISLAS FILIPINAS
EN EL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE LA
PROV. DE CEBU
20.0 Distrito
Sala Auxiliar
EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS EXP. CAD. No. 17
FILIPINAS, Record No. 946
Peticionario,
- contra -
ENEMESIA ACASO, et al.,
Reclamantes.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
Lote No. 1499. – A favor de Tirso Tumulak, casado con Engrasia Pongasi.
x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ASI SE ORDENA.
Cebu, Cebu, 31 de Marzo de 1929.
(Fdo.) GUILLERMO F. PABLO
Juez Auxiliar del 20.0 Distrito
A certified true copy:
Cebu City, April 19, 1995
BENITO F. BUNAGAN
Geodetic Engineer
SEC. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. – When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (2a)Thus, in the absence of proof that the Geodetic Engineer is a public officer in custody thereof, such piece of evidence has no probative value.
We now tackle the theory that the "other documents" mentioned in Section 3(f) of RA 26 refer to those enumerated in paragraph 5 of LRC Circular No. 35 dated June 13, 1983, to wit:Furthermore, the affidavit of a certain Conchita Oyao, an alleged neighbor of the Tumulaks, attesting to the fact that there existed an original certificate of title, the number of which she did not mention, issued to Lot 1499 as she personally saw the owner's duplicate copy during the lifetime of the registered owners, does not help the case of respondent Gacho. In the first place, said affidavit is inadmissible in evidence under the hearsay rule[24] since Oyao was not presented in court to testify on such alleged loss of the original certificate of title. Secondly, even if we were to consider the contents of the affidavit, the same do not likewise help respondent's case. While Oyao attested to the fact of the loss of such title by Aguinaldo Tumulak Perez during the Japanese invasion, respondent, however, failed to show why Oyao was the one who attested to the fact of loss and not Aguinaldo who was allegedly in possession of the owner's duplicate copy at the time it was lost. It is also noted that Aguinaldo or his brother Restituto did not bother to reconstitute the title after it was lost during the Japanese invasion.(a) A duly prepared plan of said parcel of land in tracing cloth, with two (2) print copies thereof, prepared by the government agency which issued the certified technical description, or by a duly licensed Geodetic Engineer who shall certify thereon that he prepared the same on the basis of a duly certified technical description. Where the plan as submitted is certified by the government agency which issued the same, it is sufficient that the technical description be prepared by a duly licensed Geodetic Engineer on the basis of said certified plan.
- In case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources enumerated in Sections 2 (f) and 3 (f) of Republic Act No. 26 in relation to section 12 thereof, the signed duplicate copy of the petition to be forwarded to this Commission shall be accompanied by the following:
(b) The original, two (2) duplicate copies, and a xerox copy of the original of the technical description of the parcel of land covered by the certificate of title, duly certified by the authorized officer of the Bureau of Lands or the Land Registration Commission who issued the technical description.
(c) A signed copy of the certification of the Register of Deeds concerned that the original of the certificate of title on file in the Registry was either lost or destroyed, indicating the name of the registered owner, if known from the other records on file in said office."
Petitioners maintain that since they submitted before the lower court Exhibits "N" 5 , "S" 6 and "S-1" 7 , and "T" 8 , consisting of the certification from the register of Deeds, technical descriptions, and tracing cloth plan, respectively, their petition for reconstitution should have been granted by the lower court.
Untenable is petitioners' contention. Paragraph 5 of LRC Circular No. 35 specifically states that "[i]n case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources enumerated in sections 2(f) and 3(f) of Republic Act No. 26, in relation to section 12 thereof, the signed duplicate copy of the petition to be forwarded to this Commission shall be accompanied by the following: . . ." From the foregoing, it is clear that subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) of paragraph 5 of LRC Circular No. 35 are merely additional documents that must accompany the petition to be forwarded to the Land Registration Commission (now Land Registration Authority). There is nothing in LRC Circular No. 35 to support petitioners' stance that the documents therein enumerated are those referred to in Section 3(f) of RA 26.
It has been held by the Court that when Section 2(f) of Republic Act No. 26 speaks of "any other document," the same must refer to similar documents previously enumerated therein 9 , that is, those mentioned in Sections 2(a), (b), (c), and (d). Having failed to provide a sufficient and proper basis for reconstitution, petitioners cannot assail the respondent court for dismissing their petition for reconstitution.[23] (Emphasis supplied).