G.R. No. 169481 February 22, 2010
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Heirs of Julio Ramos, represented by Reynaldo Ramos Medina, Zenaida Ramos Medina, Dolores Ramos Medina, Romeo Ramos Medina, Virgie Ramos Medina, Herminia Ramos Medina, Cesar Ramos Medina and Remedios Ramos Medina, Respondents.

FACTS

On February 23, 2001, respondents filed a Petition for Reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 3613 covering Lot No. 54 of the Cadastral Survey of Orani, Bataan, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga City. They alleged that their grandfather, Julio Ramos, was the original claimant of the lot. They presented several documents: a Relocation Plan and Technical Description of the lot; a Certification from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) stating that Lot No. 54 was issued Decree No. 190622 on September 29, 1925; a Certification from the Acting Registrar of Deeds of Bataan that OCT No. 3613 was not among the salvaged records; a Lot Data Computation from the Bureau of Lands showing Julio Ramos as the claimant; and a Tax Declaration in the name of Julio Ramos. They claimed the owner’s duplicate copy was lost during the Japanese occupation when it was buried in a foxhole. At the hearing, respondent Reynaldo Ramos Medina testified to these facts. The public prosecutor did not cross-examine him. The RTC granted the petition on February 19, 2002, ordering the reconstitution based on the approved Relocation Plan and Technical Description. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s order on August 31, 2005. The Republic then filed this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s order granting the reconstitution of OCT No. 3613.

RULING

Yes, the petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the petition for reconstitution.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution due to respondents’ failure to comply with the mandatory jurisdictional requirements under Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26 . Specifically, the petition failed to state the names and addresses of the occupants, the owners of adjoining properties, and all persons who may have an interest in the property, and it failed to state that no deeds or other instruments affecting the property were pending registration. Furthermore, the notice of hearing was not published in the Official Gazette as required by law.
On the substantive requirements, the Court ruled that respondents failed to provide a sufficient and proper basis for reconstitution under Section 2(f) of R.A. No. 26 . The documents presented were inadequate: the LRA Certification did not state the name of the registered owner; the Relocation Plan and Technical Description were merely supporting documents and not the primary basis; the Lot Data Computation was not a competent substitute for the certificate of title; and the Tax Declaration was not proof of ownership. The Court also found the claim of loss during the Japanese occupation dubious due to the lack of an immediate sworn report of loss to the Register of Deeds as required by Section 109 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act). The trial court and the CA’s factual findings were set aside as they were premised on the absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.