The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing that the judicial reconstitution of a Torrens title requires strict compliance with the mandatory procedures and requirements laid down in Republic Act No. 26 (RA 26). In Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Jovito and Kathleen Bercede, the Court ruled that the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence to warrant the reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title No. 4275, particularly regarding the unavailability of primary source documents and the fulfillment of jurisdictional requirements. This decision underscores the need for petitioners to adhere strictly to the statutory framework to prevent potential fraud and ensure the integrity of land titles.

Lost Title, Lost Cause? Proving Ownership in Reconstitution Cases

The case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Spouses Jovito and Kathleen Bercede originated from a petition filed by the respondents to reconstitute Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4275. They claimed ownership of a 345 square meter parcel of land in Carcar City, Cebu, tracing their ownership through a series of sales from the original registered owners, spouses Teofisto and Faustina Alesna. The respondents asserted that both the original copy of the title with the Register of Deeds and the owner’s duplicate copy were lost. In support of their petition, they presented a photocopy of the OCT, tax declarations, a tax clearance, deeds of sale, and a certification from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) stating the certificate of title was unavailable due to being burned or lost during World War II. However, the Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition, arguing that the respondents failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of RA 26, particularly concerning the validity of the source document and proof of the title’s existence at the time of loss. This legal battle puts into focus the rigorous standards for reconstituting lost land titles in the Philippines and what evidence is deemed sufficient.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the respondents, directing the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the original copy of OCT No. 4275. The RTC reasoned that the LRA certification confirmed the loss or destruction of the title, the respondents demonstrated an interest in the property through successive transfers, and the tax declaration, along with the photocopy of the OCT, indicated the title’s validity and consistent property boundaries. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s decision, holding that the photocopy of the OCT fell under the category of “any other document” as a possible source of reconstitution under Section 2 (f) of RA 26. The CA dismissed the Republic’s challenge to the photocopy’s authenticity, deeming it a new issue raised on appeal. Furthermore, it emphasized that the contents of the photocopy aligned with other submitted documents, suggesting the actual existence of OCT No. 4275.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts, emphasizing the stringent requirements for judicial reconstitution under RA 26. RA 26, provides a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title lost or destroyed. The Supreme Court highlighted the mandatory nature of the procedures and requirements outlined in RA 26, whether the reconstitution is judicial or administrative. For judicial reconstitution, Sections 2 and 3 of RA 26 explicitly list the acceptable bases or sources, which must be followed in a specific order. Failure to comply strictly with these requirements deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the case, rendering all proceedings null and void. The Court emphasized that the unavailability or loss of primary source documents must be proved by clear and convincing evidence before resorting to secondary sources.

Reconstitution of title is a special proceeding. Being a special proceeding, a petition for reconstitution must allege and prove certain specific jurisdictional facts before a trial court can acquire jurisdiction. R.A. No. 26, as amended, is the special law which provides for a specific procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title lost or destroyed; Sections 2 and 3 thereof provide how original certificates of title and transfer certificates of title shall be respectively reconstituted and from what specific sources successively enumerated therein such reconstitution shall be made.

The Supreme Court found that the respondents failed to establish that they had sought and could not find the documents mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Section 2 of RA 26 before relying on a photocopy of OCT No. 4275. The LRA certification only confirmed the loss of the copy of OCT No. 4275 on file with the Register of Deeds, not the owner’s duplicate copy or other copies under private control. Moreover, the Petition for Reconstitution omitted several declarations required under Section 12 of RA 26, such as the absence of co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicates, details about buildings or improvements on the property, information on occupants, and encumbrances affecting the property. Additionally, the serial number on the photocopy of OCT No. 4275 was unclear and contained handwritten intercalations, raising doubts about its authenticity, compounded by a discrepancy between the title number on the photocopy and the number stated in the extra-judicial settlement with deed of absolute sale.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that if a petition for reconstitution is based exclusively on sources mentioned in paragraph (f) of Sections 2 and 3 of RA 26, it must be accompanied by a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the LRA or a certified copy of the description from a prior certificate of title. This requirement was not met by the respondents, as they failed to provide the necessary technical description with their Petition for Reconstitution. This analysis aligns with the principle that when Sections 2 (f) and 3 (f) of RA 26 speak of “any other document,” it refers only to documents that are similar to those previously enumerated therein or those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e). Therefore, any document referred to in paragraph (f) can only be resorted to in the absence of those preceding in order.

Based on these lapses, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for judicial reconstitution where the source document falls under Sections 2 (f) or 3 (f) of RA 26:

1. The availability and use of source documents should follow the order they are listed in Sections 2 and 3 of RA 26. Only if the source documents in paragraphs (a) through (e) are proven unavailable can prospective litigants resort to the source document in paragraph (f).
2. When Sections 2 (f) and 3 (f) of RA 26 refer to “any other document,” it must refer to similar documents previously enumerated therein, those mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of both Sections, under the principle of ejusdem generis.
3. The unavailability or loss of the source documents listed higher in the list than the one being offered as the source for the petition for reconstitution must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
4. If the source or basis for reconstitution falls under paragraph (f) of Sections 2 and 3 of RA 26, the applicable procedure is that provided under Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26.
5. Under Section 15 of RA 26, the court shall issue an order of reconstitution only if, after hearing and by clear and convincing evidence, it finds that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or has an interest therein, the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed, the description, area, and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title, and the documents presented, as supported by parole evidence or otherwise, are sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
6. The requirements under the Fourth Guideline are jurisdictional, and therefore substantial compliance is not enough. The acquisition of jurisdiction over a reconstitution case is hinged on strict compliance with the statutory requirements, and non-compliance renders the reconstitution proceedings null and void.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision emphasized the need for caution and strict adherence to the law in reconstitution cases, underscoring the importance of verifying the authenticity and completeness of evidence to prevent fraud and ensure the integrity of land titles. The Court also noted that courts should be judicious and proceed with extreme caution in cases for reconstitution of titles to land under RA 26. The Court held that the Petition for Reconstitution should not have been granted by the courts a quo. Close scrutiny of the record shows that the Petition for Reconstitution, contrary to the ruling of both the RTC and the CA, has NOT complied with the requisites enumerated under the Fourth Guideline. Therefore, the reconstitution of the original of OCT No. 4275 is neither warranted nor justified, pursuant to the Sixth Guideline, which mandates strict compliance.

FAQs

What is judicial reconstitution of a Torrens title?	It is the restoration of a lost or destroyed Torrens certificate in its original form and condition, attesting to a person’s title to registered land, as defined under Republic Act No. 26.
What is the main requirement for judicial reconstitution?	Strict compliance with the requirements and procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 26, the law that governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens titles.
What happens if the requirements are not strictly followed?	Non-compliance deprives the court of jurisdiction over the case, making all proceedings null and void, highlighting the critical importance of adherence.
What should a petitioner do if the original title cannot be found?	The petitioner must provide clear and convincing evidence that the primary source documents listed in Sections 2(a) to 2(e) are unavailable before relying on alternative documents under Section 2(f).
What kind of document should be used as the source of reconstitution?	The document used should be the one highest in the order of preference listed in Sections 2 and 3 of RA 26, only resorting to “any other document” if all higher-priority documents are unavailable.
Can a photocopy of the original certificate of title be considered?	Yes, but only as a last resort if all other primary source documents are proven unavailable and if the court deems it a sufficient basis for reconstitution, while observing strict requirements under RA 26.
What specific details must the petition for reconstitution contain?	It must include details about the loss of the owner’s duplicate, lack of other duplicates, property location, buildings, occupants, adjoining owners, encumbrances, and any unregistered instruments affecting the property.
Is a technical description of the property necessary?	Yes, if relying on alternative documents, the petition must include a plan and technical description approved by the LRA or a certified copy of the description from a prior certificate of title.
Who should be notified about the reconstitution petition?	The LRA, Register of Deeds, provincial or city fiscal, adjoining property owners, occupants, and all other parties with an interest in the property must be notified.

This ruling serves as a potent reminder to property owners of the necessity for meticulous record-keeping and for legal professionals to ensure full compliance with RA 26 in reconstitution cases. It reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the integrity of land titles and preventing fraudulent activities in real estate transactions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Republic of the Philippines vs. Spouses Jovito and Kathleen Bercede, G.R. No. 214223, January 10, 2023