G.R. No. 210540. April 19, 2016.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HOMER AND MA. SUSANA DAGONDON, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents Homer and Ma. Susana Dagondon, as attorneys-in-fact of Jover P. Dagondon, filed a Petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mambajao, Camiguin, praying for the reconstitution of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) of a 5,185-square meter parcel of land, Lot No. 84 of the Catarman Cadastre. They alleged that Jover was the registered owner, having purchased the lot, and that it was registered under his name for taxation purposes. They presented certifications from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) stating that Decree No. 466085 was issued for Lot 84 but the LRA had no copy, presumed lost or destroyed due to the last world war. A certification from the Register of Deeds (RD) of Mambajao, Camiguin declared that the subject property had no existing OCT and was probably destroyed during the eruption of Hiboc-Hiboc Volcano or World War II. The petition for reconstitution was based on Decree No. 466085. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the petition for insufficiency in form and substance, arguing respondents failed to establish the existence of the Torrens Title sought to be reconstituted. The RTC granted the petition and ordered the RD to reconstitute the OCT. The RTC denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration, finding it filed out of time. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the appeal, holding that the RTC Decision had attained finality due to the Republic’s failure to move for reconsideration within the reglementary period, making it immutable. The CA did not rule on the propriety of the reconstitution order.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the RTC Decision could no longer be assailed pursuant to the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgments.
2. Whether or not the RTC correctly ordered the reconstitution of the OCT of Lot 84.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgments must yield in this case. The Court found compelling reasons to relax the rule, as the subject matter involved a sizeable parcel of real property, the strict application would undermine the stability of the Torrens System, and the petitioner presented a strong and meritorious case. Thus, the Court exercised its prerogative to suspend procedural rules and resolve the case on its merits.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC erred in ordering the reconstitution. Republic Act No. 26 governs judicial reconstitution and presupposes that the property has already been brought under the Torrens System and that a certificate of title had been previously issued but was lost or destroyed. Respondents failed to adduce clear and convincing proof that an OCT covering Lot 84 had previously been issued. The certifications presented only established the issuance of a decree, not the actual issuance of an OCT. A decree of registration is not one of the sources enumerated under Section 2 of R.A. No. 26 for reconstituting an OCT; it is only a certified copy of the decree that is a source. Since no OCT was proven to have been issued, there was nothing to reconstitute. The proper remedy, if respondents insist on establishing title, is not reconstitution under R.A. No. 26 but a petition for cancellation and re-issuance of the decree and for issuance of an OCT pursuant to that reissued decree, filed in the court that adjudicated the land. The petition for reconstitution was dismissed for lack of merit.