G.R. No. 142284 ; June 8, 2005
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Severiana Gacho, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Severiana Gacho filed a petition for reconstitution of the lost original certificate of title for Lot No. 1499 of the Opon Cadastre. She claimed ownership by purchase of a portion of the lot, which was originally decreed in favor of Tirso Tumulak and Engracia Pongasi pursuant to a 1929 decision in a cadastral case. Gacho alleged that both the owner’s duplicate and the original copy on file with the Register of Deeds were lost or destroyed during World War II. The trial court granted the petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed, arguing that the reconstitution was based on insufficient evidence. It contended that the documents presented, including a copy of the 1929 cadastral decision and an index of decrees, were inadequate to prove the existence and subsequent loss of the specific certificate of title. The Republic emphasized that the mandatory requirements under Republic Act No. 26 for judicial reconstitution were not satisfied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the reconstitution of the lost certificate of title based on the evidence presented by respondent Gacho.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic centers on the sufficiency of evidence presented to warrant judicial reconstitution under R.A. No. 26 . The Court held that the respondent satisfactorily established the former existence of the certificate of title and its subsequent loss. The 1929 cadastral decision, which became final and executory, constituted a valid basis for the issuance of a decree and an original certificate of title. This document, being a public record, proved the state of the title prior to its loss.
Furthermore, the Court found that the loss of both the owner’s duplicate and the original copy on file was sufficiently proven. The certification from the Register of Deeds confirmed that its copy was missing, while an affidavit from a credible witness attested to the existence and subsequent wartime loss of the owner’s duplicate copy. The Court ruled that these documents, coupled with the technical description and plan of the lot, constituted competent and convincing evidence meeting the standard for reconstitution. The petition complied with the jurisdictional requirements of publication and notice, and no valid opposition was filed. Consequently, the reconstitution was proper.