GR 170459; (February, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170459 ; February 9, 2011
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Candido, Demetila, Jesus, Angelito, and Teresita, all surnamed Vergel De Dios, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Candido, Demetila, Jesus, Angelito, and Teresita, all surnamed Vergel De Dios, are among the registered co-owners of three parcels of land in Angat, Bulacan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-141671. After the sale of Lot 1 and the inclusion of Lot 3 in a provincial road, only Lot 2 (with a reduced area of 1,788.99 sq m) remained, which was allotted to the respondents via a “Kasulatan ng Partihan sa Lupa na may Kalakip na Pagmamana at Pagtalikod sa Karapatan.” The owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-141671 was allegedly destroyed in a flood on October 17, 1978, and the original copy on file with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan was destroyed in a fire on March 7, 1987. Consequently, respondent Candido, as attorney-in-fact for the others, filed a Petition for Reconstitution of the Burned Original of TCT No. T-141671 and Issuance of a New Owner’s Duplicate Copy in Lieu of the Destroyed One with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The petition was supported by documents including a Special Power of Attorney, a photocopy of the owner’s duplicate, the Kasulatan, technical description, plan, tax declaration, official receipt, a certification from the Register of Deeds confirming the title was burned, and an Affidavit of Loss. On January 21, 2003, the RTC granted the petition and directed the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the title and issue a second owner’s copy. The Republic of the Philippines appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, applying Heirs of Ragua v. Court of Appeals, ruled that the presented documents (including an uncertified photocopy of the TCT and a Kasulatan executed in 1996) were insufficient to order reconstitution. However, the CA noted that the appeal only questioned the reconstitution order and not the order for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title, which it deemed final and executory. Thus, the CA modified the RTC decision by deleting the order for reconstitution but affirming the order for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title. The Republic’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in maintaining the trial court’s order for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title after it had deleted the order for reconstitution of the lost certificate of title.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court of Appeals Decision dated August 17, 2005 was AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the entire January 21, 2003 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, was REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Supreme Court held that the CA erred in not deleting the order for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title after deleting the reconstitution order. Reconstitution denotes the restoration of a lost or destroyed certificate of title in the custody of the Register of Deeds. The issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy under Section 16 of Republic Act No. 26 is a consequence that follows only after a valid reconstitution. The Court ruled that it was immaterial whether the petitioner specifically questioned the issuance order in its appeal. By praying for the dismissal of the petition for reconstitution, the petitioner was inherently challenging all corollary orders, including the order to issue a new duplicate. Fundamentally, without a valid reconstitution order, there is no certificate of title from which the Register of Deeds can issue a duplicate copy. Since the original title was burned and the reconstitution was properly denied for lack of sufficient basis, the order for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title had no legal foundation and was impossible to comply with. Therefore, the entire RTC decision was reversed.