364 Phil. 591
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
"(a) IN MISAPPREHENDING THE FACTS BY DECLARING THAT THERE IS NO ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. RO-12890 (N.A.) ISSUED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES; THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT;From the decision of the Court of Appeals, the following facts are gathered:
(b) IN NOT APPLYING THE LAW THAT ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION IS UNAVAILING AGAINST THE CONCLUSIVE AND INDEFEASIBLE CHARACTER OF THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE."[1]
The Decree reads:Pursuant to the aforementioned Decree, Original Certificate of Title No. 28203 was issued on January 30, 1931 over Lot No. 663 in the names of spouses Fausto Alipoon and Silveria Duria. Thereafter, OCT No. 28203 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. T-17224 was issued on March 16, 1933 in the name of Marcelina Alvarez, married to Agripino Alvarez, and mother of respondents. The following certification appears on the face of TCT No. 17224:
"Decree No. 414946
Cadastral Case No. 36, G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record No. 970 having been duly and regularly heard in accordance with the provisions of law, it is hereby decreed that the spouses Fausto Alipoon and Silveria Duria in the proportion of an undivided 1/2 share of each spouse of Cauayan, Province of Occidental Negros, P.I. are the owners in fee simple of certain land situated in said Province of Occidental Negros, more particularly bounded and described as follows:"[2]
"It is further certified that said land was originally registered on the 30th day of January in the year nineteen hundred and thirty one in the Registration Book of this Office, Volume 85, page 51, as Original Certificate of Title No. 28203 pursuant to Decree No. 414946 issued in G.L.R.O Cadastral Record No. 970.Since 1933 and up to the present, respondents have been in continuous, open and adverse possession of said Lot No. 663.
This certification is a transfer from Original Certificate of Title No. 28203 which is cancelled by virtue hereof as far as the above described land is concerned."[3]
"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:does not mean that the Office never issued a transfer certificate of title over Lot 663, as it merely states that as of June 18, 1988, no title over Lot No. 663 is existing in its files, meaning that it does not have in its possession a copy of any title over Lot No. 663. The non-existence of a copy of TCT No. 17224 in the files of the Office of the Register of Deeds does not imply that a TCT over Lot No. 663 had never been issued/recorded.
This is to certify that as per record of this Office, there is no existing title in the file of this Office covering Lot No. 663 of the Cadastral Survey of Cauayan.
This certification is issued upon the request of Morita Alipoon of Tiling, Cauayan, Negros Occidental for RECONSTITUTION PURPOSES."[4]
"It is a basic rule that the reconstitution or reconstruction of a certificate of title literally and within the meaning of Republic Act No. 26, as amended, denotes restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. The purpose of the reconstitution of title or any document is to have the same reproduced, after proper proceedings in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred. If the court goes beyond such purpose it acts without or in excess of jurisdiction.In Serra Serra vs. Court of Appeals,[5] this Court already held that if a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction.[6]
From the own admissions of defendants-appellees, the issuance of the Reconstituted Title in favor of the parents of defendants-appellees, is rendered doubtful. If no title was ever issued over lot 663, then defendants-appellees should have asked for the Issuance of Title pursuant to Decree No. 414946 and not for a reconstitution of title.
The existence of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17224 issued in favor of plaintiffs-appellants further proves that the issuance of Reconstituted Original Certificate of Title in favor of defendants-appellees is void."
"The trial court did not give Transfer Certificate of Title No.7224 any credence allegedly because it is eroded with inherent defects.Again, We do not agree. The certificate simply reads:
The trial court found that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17224 does not bear the signature of the Register of Deeds.
We do not agree.
Evident from the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17224 that the document was attested to by the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental. Although blurred because of its age, the signature of the Register of Deeds is still very visible.
It is erroneous for the trial court to pronounce that this document was not signed by the Register of Deeds.
The trial court also ruled that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17224 is not authentic because the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental certified that there was no transfer certificate of title ever issued by the Office of the Register of Deeds over Lot 663.
It bears stress that in petitions for review on certiorari, the rule is well-settled that only questions of law may be brought by the parties and passed upon by the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law.[7] The findings of fact of the latter are conclusive for it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again.[8] Unless there is a showing that the findings (of the Court of Appeals) complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, this Court will respect and not disturb such findings.[9] We find no basis to deviate from the rule in the present case where petitioners' contentions all involve questions of fact and alleged misreading and/or misappreciation of the evidence by the Court of Appeals which are not proper in this review.[10]"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:The certification is very clear and simple. The Register of Deeds merely certified that as of June 18, 1988 no title over Lot 663 is existing in its file. Otherwise stated, the Register of Deeds certified that its office do not have in its possession a copy of any title over Lot 663.
This is to certify that as per record of this Office, there is no existing title in the file of this Office covering Lot No. 663 of the Cadastral Survey of Cauayan.
This certification is issued upon the request of Morita Alipoon of Tiling, Cauayan, Negros Occidental, for RECONSTITUTION PURPOSES."
The Register of Deeds never certified that its office never issued a transfer certificate of title over Lot 663. There is nothing in the certification from which such interpretation can be inferred. The fact that the Office of the Register of Deeds does not have in its file a title over Lot 663 does not imply that a transfer certificate of title was never issued over Lot 663.
It must be remembered that because of the World War II in 1941, all the documents recorded and issued by the Officer (sic) of the Register of Deeds, which may include Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17223 which was issued in 1933, were all destroyed. And unless these document (sic) are reconstituted, these document will certainly not be in the files of the Register of Deeds. But its non-existence in the files of the Register of Deeds would certainly not detract Us from the fact that these documents were recorded/issued.
Indeed, the fact that the title is not in the file of the Office of the Register of Deeds does not imply that a Transfer Certificate of Title had never been issued.
Therefore, on this ground, the Transfer Certificate of Title cannot be declared to be false."