GR 160560; (July, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160560 July 29, 2005
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, represented by SECRETARY ROBERTO M. PAGDANGANAN, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balayan, Batangas, for the judicial reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-13352, registered in the name of Ceferino Ascue. The DAR alleged that the original title was lost, burned, or destroyed while in Ascue’s office and that no owner’s duplicate copy had been issued. The land covered by the title, Lot 50 Pcs-611, was targeted for compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for distribution to farmer-beneficiaries. The DAR presented a witness who testified to the loss and the need for the title to proceed with land distribution, and submitted a photocopy of what appeared to be the TCT and a certification from the Register of Deeds that the title was not among its available records.
The RTC granted the petition and ordered the reconstitution of the title. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC’s decision, prompting the DAR to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s grant of the petition for judicial reconstitution of TCT No. T-13352.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the DAR’s petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petition for reconstitution was fatally defective and that the DAR failed to establish a sufficient basis for judicial reconstitution. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory requirements for reconstitution proceedings under Republic Act No. 26 . The DAR’s petition was premised on the alleged loss of the original copy of the title. However, the DAR itself presented a photocopy of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title as an exhibit. The existence of this photocopy strongly suggests that an owner’s duplicate was indeed issued and existed, contradicting the DAR’s allegation that no such duplicate was issued. This discrepancy created serious doubt regarding the very fact of loss, which is a fundamental prerequisite.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that reconstitution is a strict statutory process that cannot be granted based on incomplete or dubious evidence. The DAR failed to submit a certified true copy of the decree of registration or the original certificate of title from which TCT No. T-13352 was derived, which are among the primary sources for reconstitution listed in the law. The technical description submitted was also uncertified. The testimony of the DAR’s sole witness was deemed insufficient to overcome these evidentiary deficiencies. Consequently, the DAR did not discharge its burden of proving the alleged loss and the validity of the title sought to be reconstituted with clear and convincing evidence, warranting the denial of the petition.