GR 152149; (April, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152149. April 25, 2006.
BENJAMIN SUBIDO, for and in behalf of the HEIRS OF THE LATE ABELARDO SUBIDO, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
The heirs of Abelardo Subido, through Romeo Gorgod, filed a petition for the reconstitution of the original and owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 99582, which was allegedly lost in a fire. The petition was based on a surviving microfilm copy of a subdivision plan, (LRC) Psd-52016. The Land Registration Authority (LRA) reported that the technical description of the lot, when plotted, fell entirely within a larger parcel of land covered by a different title, OCT No. 632, which was already the subject of a prior and final judgment in another case (G.R. No. 94033, Republic v. Marasigan) declaring it null and void.
The Regional Trial Court granted the petition for reconstitution. The Republic appealed, arguing that reconstituting a title derived from a void mother title is impermissible. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, nullifying its decision. The heirs then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether a petition for judicial reconstitution of a transfer certificate of title can be granted when its alleged mother title has been previously declared null and void by final judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that judicial reconstitution is not a means to revive a title that has been extinguished or declared void. The purpose of reconstitution is merely to reproduce a lost or destroyed certificate in its original form and condition at the time of loss. It presupposes the existence and validity of the title to be reconstituted.
The legal logic is clear: TCT No. 99582 traces its origin to OCT No. 632. The validity of a transfer certificate is dependent on the validity of its mother title. Since OCT No. 632 had been conclusively nullified by final judgment in Republic v. Marasigan, all titles derived from it, including TCT No. 99582, are likewise void. A void title cannot be reconstituted, as reconstitution would give life to a non-existent right and undermine the stability of the Torrens system. The Court emphasized that the heirs cannot use reconstitution proceedings to collaterally attack the final judgment nullifying OCT No. 632. Therefore, with no valid source title, the petition for reconstitution must fail.