GR 176508; (January, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 176508 , January 12, 2015
Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Hon. Teodoro T. Riel, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 85, Quezon City, Respondent. University of the Philippines, Intervenor.
FACTS
Petitioner Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc. filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1609 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, docketed as L.R.C. Case No. Q-18987 (04), claiming the original copy was lost in a fire. The respondent Acting Presiding Judge initially gave due course to the petition but later dismissed it based on a Land Registration Authority (LRA) report recommending dismissal and the oppositions filed by the Republic of the Philippines and the University of the Philippines (UP). The petitioner moved for reconsideration, attaching documents including a copy of an original application for registration, a notice of initial hearing, a Spanish Testimonial Title, a tax assessment, and an approved plan. The motion was denied. The petitioner then filed a direct petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent Judge. The OSG and UP opposed, arguing the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy, failed to observe the hierarchy of courts, and lacked factual and legal basis for reconstitution, noting that ownership of the land was already settled in favor of UP in prior jurisprudence.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition for judicial reconstitution of title.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus. The respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. First, the RTC had jurisdiction over the petition under Republic Act No. 26 , and its dismissal was not arbitrary but based on the LRA report and oppositions. Second, the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Republic Act No. 26 , as it did not present the owner’s duplicate, a co-owner’s duplicate, a certified copy of the title, or any of the other acceptable sources enumerated in Sections 2 and 3 of the law for reconstituting an original certificate of title. The documents submitted were insufficient. Third, the land subject of the petition was already registered in the name of UP, a fact settled in a long line of cases, including Cañero v. University of the Philippines. The petitioner’s claim, derived from an assignment by Marcelino Tiburcio, had already been adjudicated. Therefore, the dismissal of the petition for reconstitution was proper.