GR 128531; (October, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128531 October 26, 1999
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE L. YUPANGCO, JR., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Vicente Yupangco, Jr., owner of a condominium unit evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 7648, filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title pursuant to Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529, as his copy was lost. The RTC ordered the Registrar of Deeds of Makati to comment. The Registrar filed a manifestation stating no objection. After hearing, the RTC granted the petition and ordered the issuance of a new duplicate title. A copy of the decision was furnished to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General moved for reconsideration, arguing that he was not notified of the petition or given notice thereof. The RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s order. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contending that the lack of notice to the Solicitor General rendered the proceedings void.
ISSUE
Whether in a proceeding for the issuance of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title under Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529, the Solicitor General is required to be notified, such that failure to give such notice renders the proceedings void.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529 does not require that the Office of the Solicitor General be notified and heard in proceedings for the issuance of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title. This contrasts with specific provisions in the same law (e.g., Sections 23 and 36) which expressly require notice to or action by the Solicitor General in original registration and cadastral proceedings. The Solicitor General’s reliance on the Administrative Code provision mandating his office to represent the Government in all land registration and related proceedings does not make notice to him mandatory in such proceedings. Since the Registrar of Deeds, the proper government party, was notified and manifested no objection, the lack of notice to the Solicitor General was at most a formal, not a jurisdictional, defect. The Court distinguished this case from cadastral and original registration proceedings where notice to the Solicitor General is specifically required by law. No prejudice to the government was shown.