G.R. No. 167709 September 19, 2008
Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Pascual Ocariza, represented by Co-Heir Remedios Bacalso

FACTS

In 1993, the Heirs of Pascual Ocariza, represented by Remedios Bacalso, filed an Application for Original Registration for Lot No. 4147, Cebu Cadastre. The Land Registration Authority (LRA) reported that Decree No. 99211 was issued for the lot in 1920 under Cadastral Case No. 13, but a copy was not among its salvaged records. The RTC later deemed the application withdrawn. In 1997, the heirs filed a Petition for Reconstitution of Lost Certificate of Title for the same lot, alleging the original and owner’s duplicate copies were lost during World War II. They attached a 1995 Certification from the Registry of Deeds of Cebu City stating its records did not show an existing OCT/TCT for the lot and that it was “not in a position to certify as to whether a title is issued or not.”
The RTC granted the petition, relying on the LRA report mentioning Decree No. 99211 and the testimony of Remedios Bacalso that a title was issued to Pascual Ocariza but was lost. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the respondents failed to prove the existence and loss of the certificate of title as required by Republic Act No. 26.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents successfully established the existence and subsequent loss of the original certificate of title to warrant judicial reconstitution under R.A. No. 26.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and DISMISSED the petition for reconstitution. The Court held that reconstitution requires strict compliance with R.A. No. 26, which mandates clear proof that an original certificate of title was previously issued and subsequently lost or destroyed. The evidence presented was insufficient.
The LRA report merely confirmed the issuance of a decree for the lot in a cadastral proceeding but did not state the decree was issued in the name of Pascual Ocariza or that a certificate of title was consequently issued. A decree is not equivalent to a certificate of title. Crucially, the Certification from the Registry of Deeds explicitly stated its records did not show an existing title and that it could not certify whether one was ever issued. This directly contradicted the claim of a lost title. The testimony of Remedios Bacalso, being unsupported by competent documentary evidence, could not substantiate the existence of the alleged title. Therefore, the foundational requirements for reconstitution—the prior issuance and the fact of loss—were not proven by the required substantial evidence. The petition was properly dismissible for failure to meet the strict standards of R.A. No. 26.