GR 148025; (August, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148025 ; August 13, 2004
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Spouses Lorenzo and Feliciana Mateo, respondents.
FACTS
On April 30, 1997, spouses Lorenzo and Feliciana Mateo filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga, Bataan, for the reconstitution of both the original and owner’s duplicate copies of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-38769, originally issued to Jose Tan. The Mateos claimed they purchased the two parcels of land covered by the title from Tan in 1978. They alleged the original copy on file with the Registry of Deeds was missing and could not be located. As for the owner’s duplicate copy, Lorenzo Mateo, a former military officer, testified he lost it during a typhoon in Leyte while he was reassigned, though he retained a photocopy.
ISSUE
Whether the spouses Mateo have sufficiently established the loss of the original copy of TCT No. T-38769 and presented competent sources for its reconstitution.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC’s denial of the petition. The legal logic centers on the stringent requirements for judicial reconstitution of title under Republic Act No. 26 . The petitioner bears the burden of proving the former existence of the title and its subsequent loss or unavailability through clear and convincing evidence. The Court found the Mateos’ evidence insufficient on both counts.
While evidence suggested the original TCT might have been taken in 1973 by the Department of Justice and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for an investigation concerning the judge who issued the related original certificate of title, this did not conclusively prove it was lost. Crucially, Lorenzo Mateo admitted contacting the NBI agent involved but failed to present him as a witness to account for the document’s current whereabouts. This failure to exhaust available means to locate the original undermined the claim of loss. Furthermore, the photocopy of the owner’s duplicate presented was partly illegible, and its provenance and custody were not satisfactorily established. Given the investigation surrounding the title’s origin and the deficiencies in the evidence, the Court held that the Mateos did not meet the high evidentiary standard required to justify the extraordinary remedy of judicial reconstitution.