G.R. No. 142810 . August 18, 2005
DOLORES A. CABELLO and TEOFILO ABELLANOSA, Petitioners, vs. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Dolores A. Cabello and Teofilo Abellanosa filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of an alleged lost Original Certificate of Title (OCT) for Lot No. 4504 in Cebu. They claimed an OCT was issued in the names of their predecessors, Basilio and Roberto Abellanosa, but both the original on file and the owner’s duplicate were lost during World War II. The petition was anchored on Section 2(d) of Republic Act No. 26 (RA 26), which allows reconstitution based on an authenticated copy of the decree of registration, purportedly dispensing with the need for a plan and technical description. Petitioners submitted a certified photocopy of Decree No. 335316, a tax declaration, and a certification from the Registry of Deeds of Cebu City stating its records “do not show that a certificate of title has been issued” for the lot.
The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and ordered reconstitution. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed, arguing the Registry’s certification cast doubt on whether an OCT was ever issued. It contended the petition should be treated under Section 2(f) of RA 26, requiring a duly approved plan and technical description. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, ruling the decree alone did not sufficiently prove a prior title’s existence and that petitioners failed to submit the mandatory plan and technical description under Section 12 of RA 26.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied the petition for reconstitution of the alleged lost certificate of title.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that reconstitution under RA 26 presupposes a previously issued Torrens title that was lost or destroyed. The pivotal evidence was the certification from the Registry of Deeds, which categorically stated its records did not show any certificate of title was issued for Lot No. 4504. This certification powerfully contradicted petitioners’ claim that an OCT once existed. Petitioners’ reliance on Section 2(d) of RA 26 was therefore misplaced, as that provision applies only when the existence of a previously issued title is established.
The Court found petitioners’ evidence insufficient to prove a prior title was issued. The decree of registration alone does not equate to the issuance of a certificate of title. The testimonial evidence—primarily from petitioner Cabello and another witness—was deemed inadequate to overcome the official certification from the Registry of Deeds. Consequently, the petition should have been filed under Section 2(f) of RA 26, which pertains to other documents not explicitly listed. Under this section and pursuant to Section 12 of RA 26, the submission of a plan and technical description duly approved by the Land Registration Authority is mandatory. Petitioners’ failure to comply with this requirement was fatal to their case. The reconstitution was thus properly denied for lack of sufficient jurisdictional basis.