G.R. No. 162335 / G.R. No. 162605 June 27, 2008
SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV, ET AL., represented by their Attorney-in-fact, ROSA R. MANOTOK, Petitioners, versus HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE, represented by TERESITA BARQUE-HERNANDEZ, Respondents.

FACTS

On October 22, 1996, Homer L. Barque, Sr., represented by Teresita Barque-Hernandez, filed a petition for administrative reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. 210177, which was allegedly destroyed in a fire. In support, Barque submitted the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, Real Estate Tax Receipts, and a Tax Declaration. The Land Registration Authority (LRA) Reconstituting Officer, Atty. Benjamin M. Bustos, requested verification of Subdivision Plan Fls-3168-D from the Lands Management Bureau. Engineer Privadi J. Dalire, Chief of the Geodetic Surveys Division, initially replied on November 7, 1996, that his office had no record of the plan. However, Engineer Ernesto S. Erive of the DENR-NCR informed Atty. Bustos on November 28, 1996, that a microfilm copy existed. This conflict prompted further inquiry. A letter dated January 2, 1997, purportedly from Engineer Dalire, authenticated the plan and recommended the reconstitution. However, Engineer Dalire subsequently wrote letters on January 5, 1997, and January 31, 1997, reiterating that his office had no record of the plan, stating the copy provided was spurious, and detailing signs of forgery in the certification stamp and initials. In a letter dated February 13, 1997, Engineer Dalire explicitly declared the January 2, 1997, letter to be a forged document.

ISSUE

The central issue is the authenticity of Subdivision Plan Fls-3168-D, which is critical for the administrative reconstitution of TCT No. 210177, given the conflicting certifications from the Lands Management Bureau and the DENR-NCR, and the allegation of a forged document.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for reconstitution. The ruling was based on the finding that the copy of Subdivision Plan Fls-3168-D submitted in support of the reconstitution was spurious. The Court gave credence to the detailed findings of Engineer Dalire in his January 31, 1997, and February 13, 1997, letters, which conclusively established that the plan did not emanate from the Lands Management Bureau and that the January 2, 1997, letter of authentication was forged. The discrepancies in the certification stamps, the absence of the plan in the Bureau’s official records, and the signs of tampering rendered the plan unreliable. Consequently, without a genuine and authentic subdivision plan, a mandatory requirement for reconstitution, the petition could not be granted.