G.R. No. L-11785; March 31, 1959
Gabino Bachoco, petitioner-appellant, vs. Ignacia Esperancilla, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Gabino Bachoco filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros for the reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title No. 25977, issued in the name of Juana Montinola for Lot No. 106 of the Sagay Cadastre, pursuant to Republic Act No. 26 . He based his petition on a copy of the decree of registration on file with the Register of Deeds. The petition alleged that the lot was adjudicated to Juana Montinola on May 31, 1923, and the OCT was issued on December 7, 1928. Juana Montinola died, leaving four children, including Cresencia Batusing. Petitioner claimed that Cresencia Batusing sold her share in the lot to him through a deed of sale dated January 17, 1925. Due to the loss or destruction of the original certificate of title and its owner’s duplicate copy, this deed remained unregistered. Petitioner sought reconstitution so he could register his deed and obtain a certificate of title for his portion.
Oppositors Ignacia Esperancilla and Tomasa Esperancilla, children of Cresencia Batusing, opposed the petition. They claimed no knowledge of the deed and argued it was ineffective, having been executed over three years before the decree of registration was issued on December 7, 1928, and thus could not convey any interest entitling petitioner to seek reconstitution.
Initially, the court ordered the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the OCT and its owner’s duplicate based on the cadastral decision and decree, and further ordered that a second owner’s duplicate be issued to petitioner. Upon a motion for reconsideration by the oppositors, arguing the sale was ineffective against a subsequent decree and that the reconstituted duplicate should not be delivered to petitioner as the title was not lost in his possession, the court reconsidered and denied the petition for reconstitution. Petitioner appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the court correctly denied petitioner’s petition for reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 , considering his claim of an interest in the property based on an unregistered and disputed deed of sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the appealed order. It held that a petition for reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 may be filed by “the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having an interest in the property.” The Court noted that the oppositors had expressly manifested in open court that they were not opposing the reconstitution of Juana Montinola’s title itself, but only the delivery of the reconstituted title to petitioner.
However, the Court clarified that reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 is limited to reproducing the certificate of title exactly as it stood at the time of its loss or destruction. It cannot be used to introduce material changes that alter the title of the registered owner. Petitioner’s objective was not merely reconstitution; he sought to have his disputed deed registered and to obtain a new certificate of title for his claimed portion. This would involve a material change opposed by other parties in interest. Such a disputed claim raises an issue that must be resolved in an ordinary action, not in the summary proceedings for reconstitution. This principle also applies to proceedings under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act, which require unanimity or the absence of adverse claims.
Therefore, the petition for reconstitution was granted only insofar as it ordered the reconstitution of the original certificate of title in the name of Juana Montinola. Petitioner’s remedy to have his alleged interest recorded must be pursued in a proper separate action once the title is reconstituted. The order was modified accordingly, without costs.