GR 146846; (August, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146846 ; August 31, 2004
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Rafael F. Holazo, represented herein by his Attorney-in-Fact, Rafael Alexander V. Holazo, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Rafael F. Holazo, through his son and attorney-in-fact Rafael Alexander, filed a petition for reconstitution of the original and owner’s duplicate copies of TCT No. 117130 covering a 320-square meter lot in Quezon City. He alleged the original copy was burned in a 1988 fire at the Register of Deeds, while the owner’s duplicate was destroyed by rain in 1990. The petition was supported by a certification from the Register of Deeds on the fire, an affidavit of loss, tax declarations, tax receipts, and a certification from the City Assessor. After publication and hearing, and upon recommendation of the Land Registration Authority, the Regional Trial Court granted the petition and ordered the reconstitution of the title solely in the name of Rafael F. Holazo. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent presented sufficient and competent evidence to warrant the judicial reconstitution of TCT No. 117130 in his name alone.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and DISMISSED the petition for reconstitution. The legal logic is anchored on the stringent requirements for judicial reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 . The Court held that the respondent failed to overcome the presumption that properties acquired during marriage are conjugal. The evidence showed the property was purchased in 1964, during the respondent’s marriage to Soledad Holazo, who was still alive. The tax declarations presented were under the names “Rafael Holazo, et al.” and “Rafael Holazo, married to Soledad Holazo,” indicating the conjugal nature of the asset. The respondent’s unilateral declaration in his petition and his son’s testimony claiming sole ownership were insufficient to rebut this legal presumption. Reconstitution requires clear proof of ownership, and the failure to establish that the property was the respondent’s exclusive capital or to implead his wife as an indispensable party was fatal. The Court emphasized that reconstitution is not a means to acquire title but to re-establish a lost one, and the petitioner must prove his claim by preponderant evidence, which was not done in this case.