G.R. No. 182980 ; June 22, 2011
BIENVENIDO CASTILLO, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Bienvenido Castillo filed a Petition for Reconstitution and Issuance of Second Owner’s Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-16755 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. He alleged that the original copy of the title on file with the Register of Deeds was lost/destroyed in a fire on March 7, 1987, and the owner’s duplicate copy was also lost. He submitted supporting documents including a photocopy of the title, technical description, subdivision plan, certification of loss from the Register of Deeds, affidavit of loss, tax declaration, and real estate tax receipt. The trial court, upon the Land Registration Authority’s (LRA) request, ordered petitioner to submit the certified technical description and sepia film plan, which he complied with. After finding the petition sufficient, the court set it for hearing, published the order in the Official Gazette, and posted notices. During the hearing, petitioner’s son and attorney-in-fact, Fernando Castillo, testified, presenting evidence including the photocopy of TCT No. T-16755 (issued in the names of Bienvenido Castillo and Felisa Cruz, with Felisa deceased since 1982), and confirmed the loss of the owner’s copy. The LRA submitted a report verifying the correctness of the plan and technical description. The RTC granted the petition and ordered the reconstitution of the original and issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy. The Republic appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, finding that the petition was fatally defective for failing to allege and prove that the certificate of title was not a duplicate of an existing one, and that the property was not covered by a patent, as required by Section 15 of Republic Act No. 26 . The CA also noted the failure to implead the deceased wife’s heirs. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s decision granting the petition for reconstitution of title.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The reconstitution proceedings were fatally defective for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 15 of Republic Act No. 26 .
1. Failure to Allege and Prove Essential Jurisdictional Facts: Section 15 of R.A. No. 26 requires that a petition for reconstitution must state, among others, that “the certificate of title had not been cancelled” and that “the property had not been the subject of a patent.” The petition filed by Bienvenido Castillo lacked these essential allegations. The absence of these jurisdictional averments rendered the petition insufficient in substance. The Court emphasized that reconstitution is a strict statutory proceeding, and compliance with all requirements of R.A. No. 26 is mandatory for the court to acquire jurisdiction.
2. Failure to Implead Indispensable Parties: The photocopy of TCT No. T-16755 presented showed that the registered owners were “Bienvenido Castillo and Felisa Cruz.” The testimony revealed that Felisa Cruz died in 1982. Consequently, her heirs are indispensable parties who must be joined in the petition. Their non-inclusion is a fatal defect, as any judgment would not be binding upon them. The proceedings cannot validly proceed without all co-owners or their successors-in-interest being made parties.
3. Nature of Reconstitution Proceedings: The Court reiterated that reconstitution does not pass upon the ownership of the land but merely re-establishes a lost title. Given the defects in the petition and the proceedings, the trial court had no jurisdiction to order the reconstitution.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the RTC decision. The petition for reconstitution was dismissed for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of the law.