THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 239505, February 17, 2021 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ROGELIO B. CIRUELAS,* REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, DOMINADOR B. CIRUELAS, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision[2] dated December 1, 2017 and the Resolution[3]
dated May 22, 2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV
No. 104582. The CA upheld the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) Amended
Decision[4] to issue a new
Certificate of Title in the name of respondent Rogelio B. Ciruelas
(Rogelio) and in the same proceeding, authorized the correction of his
surname on the title from Ceruelas to Ciruelas.
The Facts
Rogelio and Dominador B. Ciruelas (Dominador) are brothers. The instant controversy arose from a Petition
for the Issuance of a New Owner's Duplicate Copy of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-62328 Registered in the name of Rogelio
Ceruelas and Correction in the Family Name of the Registered Owner from
Ceruelas to Ciruelas and on file in the Register of Deeds [of] Batangas
Province filed by Dominador, as Rogelio's attorney-in-fact.[5]
Rogelio executed an Affidavit of Loss[6]
stating, that: (a) he was the registered owner of a parcel of land
situated in Bayorbor, Mataas na Kahoy, Batangas, covered under Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-62328;[7](b)
he kept his owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328 inside a cabinet
in his bedroom at his residence; and (c) despite diligent and exhaustive
efforts, said owner's duplicate copy could not be located and thus,
deemed lost and beyond recovery. A Certification was issued by the
Register of Deeds of Batangas Province certifying that a copy of TCT No.
T-62328 registered under the name of Rogelio Ceruelas is intact and
existing in their files,[8] The Affidavit of Loss was submitted to the Registry of Deeds of Batangas and annotated on the title.[9]
The petition prayed for the following reliefs: (a) that the owner's
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328 be declared null and void; (b) an
order be issued directing the Registry of Deeds of Batangas Province to
issue a new owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328 in the name of the
registered owner; and (c) to amend his surname from Ceruelas to
Ciruelas.[10]
As there was no opposition to the petition, Dominador presented his evidence ex parte.
Dominador testified as to the circumstances relating to the loss of the
owner's duplicate copy and how his brother's family name was
inadvertently misspelled as "Ceruelas" when their true and correct
family name is Ciruelas.[11]
Likewise submitted into evidence was the Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
issued by Rogelio designating Dominador to appear on his behalf[12] and documentary evidence to establish the requisite jurisdictional facts.
The RTC Ruling
On March 28, 2014, the RTC rendered a Decision
[13] granting the petition. The court found no reason to doubt the claim that the owner's duplicate copy of TCTNo. T-62328 was lost.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought reconsideration, which was denied in an Order
[14]
dated September 30, 2014. In the same Order, the RTC granted the Motion
for Clarification filed by Dominador which sought to amend the
dispositive portion of the RTC Decision to include the matter of
correcting Rogelio's surname.
[15]
Considering that the RTC Decision had not yet attained finality and the
matter of the correct spelling of Rogelio's surname was discussed in the
body of the said Decision, the RTC rendered an Amended Decision.
[16] Thus, the dispositive portion of the RTC Decision was amended as follows:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing petition is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, the lost owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-62328 is hereby cancelled; and the Register of Deeds for the
Province of Batangas is hereby ordered to issue a new owner's copy of
the title which shall bear the annotation that the same is issued in
lieu of the lost one; and that it shall in all respects be entitled to
like faith and credit as the original copy of TCT No. T-62328 on file
with the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Batangas, and shall be
regarded as such for the purposes of Presidential Decree No. 1529
(Property Registration Decree), as amended.
Likewise, the Register of Deeds is hereby directed to cause the
correction of the petitioner's family name as registered owner in TCT
No. T-62328 from CERUELAS to CIRUELAS such that his full name shall appear therein as ROGELIO B. CIRUELAS.
SO ORDERED.[17]
The CA Ruling
On December 1, 2017, the CA rendered the assailed Decision
[18]
dismissing the appeal. In so ruling, the CA held: (1) the registration
of the SPA in favor of Dominador is neither a prerequisite for its
validity nor will its non-registration render an agent's authority
invalid;
[19] (2) sufficient evidence was adduced to warrant a reconstitution of TCT No. T-62328 which was lost;
[20]
and (3) while an action for judicial reconstitution under Section 109
of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, otherwise known as the "Property
Registration Decree," should be resolved ahead of an action to amend
under Section 108 of the same law, to split the proceedings at this
juncture would result in multiplicity of suits, duplicitous procedure
and cause unnecessary delay.
[21]
Dissatisfied, the OSG sought reconsideration.
On May 22, 2018, the CA rendered the assailed Resolution
[22]
denying the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
Hence, this Petition.
The Republic (petitioner), through the OSG, maintains that Dominador had
no authority to either institute the action on behalf of Rogelio or
sign the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping because
the SPA was not registered with the Register of Deeds as mandated by
Section 64 of P.D. No. 1529.
[23]
Further, the evidence presented by Dominador could not prove the fact
of loss of the owner's duplicate copy insofar as the Affidavit of Loss
executed by Rogelio was hearsay and Dominador had no personal knowledge
as to the circumstances relating to the safekeeping and eventual loss of
the owner's duplicate copy.
[24]
Finally, the OSG insists that it was improper for the appellate court
to allow the correction of Rogelio's surname in the same action for
re-issuance of a lost duplicate title in contravention of the express
mandate of Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529.
[25]
In his Comment,
[26] Dominador
avers that the arguments raised by the OSG have been previously
considered and passed upon by both the RTC and the CA. More importantly,
the OSG raises questions of fact which are beyond the jurisdiction of
the Court. He claims that the OSG failed to state circumstances showing
lack or excess of jurisdiction amounting to grave abuse of discretion as
required under Rule 65. Finally, contrary to the assertions of the OSG,
he has personal knowledge as to the circumstances relating to the loss
of Rogelio's owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328 because they are
both single, reside in the same house, and share the bedroom where said
copy was kept and subsequently lost.
In Reply,
[27] the OSG points out that the instant petition is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and not a Petition for
Certiorari
under Rule 65 and hence, there is no need to allege grave abuse of
discretion. Further, the OSG denies that the petition raised questions
of fact as the issues raised delve in to the proper application of law
of procedure, specifically: the authority of the initiating party, the
competence of the witness, and the propriety of the action before the
RTC.
The Issues
To finally put an end to this controversy, the following issues must be
resolved: (1) whether Dominador, as attorney-in-fact, had the authority
to file a petition for new owner's duplicate on behalf of Rogelio and
execute the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping; (2)
whether the fact of loss of the owner's duplicate of TCT No. T-62328 was
established; and (3) whether a certificate of title may be altered
through a proceeding other than Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
While Dominador had the authority to initiate the petition under Section
109 of P.D. No. 1529 and to execute the Verification and Certification
against Forum Shopping, the Court finds that the evidence presented by
Rogelio, through Dominador, failed to prove the fact of loss as to
warrant the issuance of a new owner's duplicate.
Dominador had the requisite
authority to file the petition
and
execute the Verification
and
Certification against
Forum
Shopping.
Rogelio is the registered owner of TCT No. T-62328 and thus, is the real
party-in-interest, who should initiate an action under Section 109 of
P.D. No. 1529 before the RTC. However, by virtue of the SPA executed by
Rogelio in favor of Dominador, a contract of agency was created between
them with Rogelio as the principal and Dominador as the agent. In a
contract of agency, the agent binds himself to represent another, the
principal, with the latter's consent or authority.
[28]
An agency is based on representation, where the agent acts for and in
behalf of the principal on matters within the scope of the authority
conferred upon him such that, the acts have the same legal effect as if
they were personally done by the principal himself.
[29]
By this legal fiction of representation, the actual or legal absence of
the principal is converted into his legal or juridical presence.
[30]
Petitioner makes much of the fact that the SPA conferring authority to
Dominador was not registered with the Registry of Deeds of Batangas and,
thus, in violation of Section 64 of P.D. No. 1529 which states:
SEC. 64. Power of attorney. Any person may, by power
of attorney, convey or otherwise deal with registered land and the same
shall be registered with the Register of Deeds of the province or city
where the land lies. Any instrument revoking such power of attorney
shall be registered in like manner.
A plain reading of the aforementioned provision, however, does not state
that the registration of an SPA is a prerequisite to its validity or
conversely, its non-registration makes the agent's authority
ineffective. The Court agrees with the rationalization of the appellate
court that the main purpose of registration is to notify the whole world
and ultimately, to protect the rights of any third person who may have
interests or claims over the land.
[31] Records show that the
Petition
for the Issuance of a New Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-62328
Registered in the name of Rogelio Ceruelas and Correction in the Family
Name of the Registered Owner from Ceruelas to Ciruelas and on file in
the Register of Deeds for Batangas Province was published once a
week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation,
was set for hearing and announced to the public, with no person
interposing any objections. As the purpose of registration of the SPA
was accomplished, the Court finds no reason to invalidate Dominador's
authority on this ground alone.
[32]
Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that the certification
against forum shopping must be executed by the plaintiff or principal
party. The reason for this is that the principal party has actual
knowledge whether a petition has previously been filed involving the
same case or substantially the same issues. If, for any reason, the
principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf
must have been duly authorized.
[33]
On the argument that it should have been Rogelio who executed the
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping; records show that
the SPA executed by Rogelio authorized Dominador to sign the same as it
expressly clothes the latter authority
"to sign and execute any and
all documents relative thereto and to attend hearings so required and to
do such other acts necessary for the accomplishment of the foregoing
objective"[34] and such
authority is broad enough to include the execution of a Verification and
Certification against Forum Shopping. More importantly, the Court in
the case of
Heirs of Josefina Gabriel v. Cebrero[35]
has upheld the authority of an agent to execute a Verification and
Certification against Forum Shopping when he was constituted precisely
to prosecute a suit on behalf of his principal, thus:
It was held that when an SPA was constituted precisely to
authorize the agent to file and prosecute suits on behalf of the
principal, then it is such agent who has actual and personal knowledge
whether he or she has initiated similar actions or proceedings before
various courts on the same issue on the principal's behalf, thus,
satisfying the requirements for a valid certification against forum
shopping. The rationale behind the rule that it must be the
"petitioner or principal party himself' who should sign such
certification does not apply. Thus, the rule on the certification
against forum shopping has been properly complied with when it is the
agent or attorney-in-fact who initiated the action on the principal's
behalf and who signed the certification against forum shopping.[36] (Underscoring supplied)
The fact of loss of TCT No. T-62328
was not sufficiently proven.
In the assailed Decision, the appellate court held that in a petition
for the issuance of a second owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of
title in replacement of a lost one, the only questions to be resolved
are: (1) whether or not the original owner's duplicate copy has indeed
been lost, and (2) whether the petitioner seeking the issuance of a new
owner's duplicate title is the registered owner or other person in
interest. Thus, the appellate court ruled:
Under Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the owner
must file with the proper Registry of Deeds a notice of loss executed
under oath. In this case, Rogelio executed an Affidavit of Loss on
October 9, 2013 claiming loss of TCT No. T-62328. He had it annotated
under Entry No. 564092 on October 24, 2013 with the Registry of Deeds
for Batangas Province. On October 30, 2013, Rogelio, through Dominador,
instituted the instant reconstitution proceedings. Undoubtedly, the
plaintiff-appellee in this case, complied with the requirements of
Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
In fine, we are convinced that plaintiff-appellee adduced competent
evidence to warrant reconstitution of the allegedly lost owner's
duplicate certificate of title.[37]
Erroneously, the appellate court oversimplified the procedure for
issuance of a replacement for a lost duplicate certificate. The
applicable law in case of loss of the owner's duplicate certificate of
title is Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529 which provides:
SEC. 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In case of loss or theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath
shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register
of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss
or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for the entry of a
new certificate to him or for the registration of any Instrument, a
sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by
the registered owner or other person in interest and registered.
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest,
the court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance
of a new duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the
fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but
shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the
original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all
purposes of this decree. (Underscoring supplied)
Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529 has two distinct requirements: the first paragraph refers to the notice requirement,
i.e.,
submission of an Affidavit of Loss to the Register of Deeds while the
second paragraph pertains to the procedure for the replacement,
i.e.,
filing a petition for the issuance of a new duplicate certificate. The
second paragraph contemplates the conduct of a full-blown hearing
wherein petitioner must prove the fact of loss or theft through
preponderant evidence. As applied to the instant case, mere compliance
with the notice requirement and the filing of a petition with the
appropriate RTC does not automatically entitle the registered owner to a
replacement duplicate certificate. Rogelio, through Dominador, must
still establish by preponderance of evidence that the owner's duplicate
was lost.
In this case, the Court fmds that the fact of loss was not established
by the required quantum of proof. To recall, the only evidence presented
as proof of loss of Rogelio's owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328
was Rogelio's Affidavit of Loss and Dominador's testimony. As will be
further discussed below, both constitute hearsay evidence and cannot be
given probative weight.
It is a basic rule in evidence that a witness can testify only on the
facts that he knows of his own personal knowledge, i.e., those which are
derived from his own perception.
[38] Otherwise, it is hearsay evidence. In
Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lianga Bay and Community Multipurpose Cooperative, Inc.,
[39] the Court held:
A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of
his personal knowledge, which means those facts which are derived from
his perception Consequently, a witness may not testify as to what he
merely learned from others either because he was told or read or heard
the same. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received
as proof of the truth of what he has learned. Such is the hearsay
rule which applies not only to oral testimony or statements but also to
written evidence as well. (Underscoring supplied)
While Rogelio's Affidavit of Loss is considered a public document, it is
still classified as hearsay evidence. The reason behind this
classification is explained in the case of
Republic v. Spouses Gimenez:
[40]
Basic is the rule that, while affidavits may be considered
as public documents if they are acknowledged before a notary public,
these Affidavits are still classified as hearsay evidence. The reason
for this rule is that they are not generally prepared by the affiant,
but by another one who uses his or her own language in writing the
affiant's statements, parts of which may thus be either omitted or
misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is
deprived of the opportunity to cross- examine the affiants. For this
reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the
affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.
(Underscoring supplied)
As Rogelio did not take the witness stand, he neither authenticated his
Affidavit of Loss nor was he cross-examined. Although generally invoked
in criminal cases, the importance of cross-examination to test the
truthfulness of statements, as well as elicit all important facts
bearing upon the issue from a witness, equally applies to non-criminal
proceedings.
[41]
It is unclear whether Dominador presented himself as a witness,
precisely to authenticate Rogelio's Affidavit of Loss. Regardless,
Dominador's testimony[42]
merely reproduced the contents of Rogelio's Affidavit. Significantly,
there was no proof that Dominador had personal knowledge on the
circumstances surrounding the safekeeping and subsequent loss of
Rogelio's owner's duplicate certificate. It must be recalled that the
personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for
accepting testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed
fact. A witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot
be called upon for that purpose because his testimony derives its value
not from the credit accorded to him as a witness presently testifying,
but from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of his
information.[43] The Court
notes that in his Comment, Dominador claims that he had personal
knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the loss of the owner's
duplicate certificate because he and Rogelio are both single, reside in
the same house, and share the bedroom where said owner's duplicate
certificate was kept and subsequently lost. Unfortunately, nothing on
record supports this claim. Settled is the rule that bare allegation is
not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.[44] Worse, records show that Dominador was married[45] and there was no indication that Rogelio and Dominador lived together.
In fine, the Court deems the foregoing evidence insufficient to prove the loss of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328.
Finally, in its assailed Decision,[46]
the appellate court acknowledged that the nature of judicial
reconstitution under Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529 denotes the
reproduction of the lost or stolen title in its original form.
Necessarily, such reconstitution should precede any action to amend or
alter the title under Section 108, even if the purpose is just to
correct a misspelled surname. However, for equity considerations, to
obviate further delay, and avoid multiplicity of suits; the appellate
court allowed the correction of Rogelio's misspelled surname from
Ceruelas to Ciruelas in the same proceeding for replacement of owner's
duplicate title.
Considering, however, the Court's determination that Rogelio, through
Dominador, failed to establish the fact of loss of the owner's duplicate
of TCT No. T-62328 as to warrant the issuance of a replacement; the
issue of the propriety of joining these two actions for equity
considerations has been rendered moot.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED.
The Decision dated December 1, 2017 and the Resolution dated May 22,
2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104582 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
* Also referred to as "Rogelio B. Cirueles" in some parts of the rollo.
[1] Rollo, pp. 29-44.
[2] Id. at 46-55; penned by
Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, with Associate Justices
Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Elihu A. Ybañez, concurring.
[3] Id. at 57-59.
[4] Id. at 122-124; penned by Presiding Judge Wilfredo P. Castillo.
[5] Id. at 47.
[6] Id. at 65; Dated October 9, 2013.
[7] Id. at 63-64.
[8] Id. at 64.
[9] Id.; Entry No. 564092 inscribed on October 24, 2013.
[10] Id. at 61.
[11] Id. at 82.
[12] Id.
[13] Id. at 81-83. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the
lost owner's duplicate copy of [TCT] No. T-6232S is hereby cancelled;
and the Register of Deeds for the Province of Batangas is hereby ordered
to issue a new owner's copy of the title which shall bear the
annotation that the same is issued in lieu of the lost one; and that it
shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the
original copy of TCT No. T-62328 on file with the Registry of Deeds for
the Province of Batangas, and shall be regarded as such for the purposes
of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), as
amended.
SO ORDERED.
[14] Id. at 92-97.
[15] Id.
[16] Id. at 98-101.
[17] Id. at 100.
[18] Id. at 46-55. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Amended Decision
dated December 23, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 85,
Lipa City in Petition No. 102013-0786 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
[19] Id. at 51.
[20] Id. at 52-53.
[21] Id. at 53.
[22] Supra note 3.
[23] Rollo, pp. 34-35.
[24] Id. at 36-38.
[25] Id. at 39-40.
[26] Id. at 145-147.
[27] Id. at 150-154.
[28] CIVIL CODE, Art. 1868.
[29] Republic v. Bañez, 771 Phil. 75, 91 (2015).
[30] Country Bankers Insurance Corp. v. Keppel Cebu Shipyard, 688 Phil. 78, 96-97 (2012).
[31] Rollo, p. 51.
[32] Id. at 54.
[33] Fuentebella v. Castro, 526 Phil. 668, 675 (2006).
[34] Rollo, p. 94.
[35] GR. No. 222737, November 12, 2018, 885 SCRA 271.
[36] Id. at 287.
[37] Rollo, pp. 52-53.
[38] Mancol v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 821 Phil. 323, 335 (2017).
[39] 425 Phil. 511, 520 (2002).
[40] 776 Phil. 233, 275 (2016).
[41] See Patula v. People, 685 Phil. 376, 396 (2012).
[42] Rollo, pp. 74-75,
citing TSN, January 30, 2014, pp. 4-5.
ATTY. MARANA:
Q Mr. Witness, do you know Mr. Witness what happened to the owner's
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328?
A It was lost, sir.
Q What was the circumstances why it was lost?
A The title was kept in a cabinet in the bedroom of my brother, but just
recently, he searched for the title, he failed to find it in the said
cabinet, sir.
Q Upon learning, Mr. Witness that the said owner's duplicate of TCT No.
T-62328 was lost, what did you do?
A My brother executed an Affidavit of Loss, sir.
Q I am showing to you an Affidavit of Loss dated October 9, 2013, is
this the Affidavit of Loss you are referring to?
A Yes, sir.
Q There is a signature on top of the signature Rogelio B. Ceruelas, is
this the signature of your
brother?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you do with the Affidavit of Loss?
A My brother registered it in the Register of Deeds, sir.
Q What evidence could you show this Hon. Court of the registration?
A Here [it] is, sir.
ATTY. MARANA:
Witness is pointing to the annotation of the annotation (sic)
registration of the Register of Deeds. May we request, Your Honor for
the signature as Exhibit "C-1" and annotation of the Affidavit of Loss
be marked as Exhibit "C-2."
Q Was it also annotated in the title?
A Yes, sir.
[43] Ching v. Quezon City Sports Club, Inc., 798 Phil. 45, 71 (2016).
[44] Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 271 (2017).
[45] See Petition, rollo, p. 60; TSN, January 30, 2014, id. at 72; RTC Amended Decision, id. at 99.
[46] Id. at 46-54.
Source: Supreme Court E-Library
This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)