G.R. No. 171774 ; February 12, 2010
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. APOLINARIO CATARROJA, REYNALDO CATARROJA, and ROSITA CATARROJA-DISTRITO, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Apolinario Catarroja, Reynaldo Catarroja, and Rosita Catarroja-Distrito filed a petition for reconstitution of the lost original certificate of title covering two lots in Zapang, Ternate, Cavite, with a combined area of over 81 hectares, which they allegedly inherited from their parents. They claimed their parents applied for registration before the war, a decree was issued in 1941, and an original title was issued but lost in a 1959 fire at the Cavite capitol. The owner’s duplicate was also allegedly lost. The Land Registration Authority (LRA) issued certifications confirming the issuance of Decree 749932 on May 21, 1941, and verifying the technical descriptions, but a copy of the decree was no longer available. The Register of Deeds certified that its records were lost in the fire and it could not ascertain if a title was issued. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition. The Court of Appeals initially reversed this, holding the evidence did not establish any sources for reconstitution under Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, but later issued an amended decision finding sufficient evidence. The Republic of the Philippines challenged this amended decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding sufficient evidence to grant the petition for reconstitution of title.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the amended decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated its initial decision denying the petition for reconstitution. The respondents failed to present any of the primary sources for reconstitution enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Section 2, R.A. 26. The documents they presented under paragraph (f)—microfilm printouts of an Official Gazette notice of hearing, LRA certifications and report, a Register of Deeds certification, and an affidavit of loss—do not qualify as “any other document” under the principle of ejusdem generis, as they are not of the same class as those in the preceding enumerations and none proves that a certificate of title was in fact issued. The Official Gazette publication only shows the initial step of publishing a claim, not that a title was granted. The LRA documents confirming a decree do not prove a title was issued pursuant to it, as decrees under the then-governing Act No. 496 could either dismiss an application or confirm title. The respondents also failed to show they exerted efforts to secure the primary documents before resorting to others. Reconstitution requires proof that the title once existed, which was not established. The Court noted the vast area of land involved, the lack of any documented transaction or tax declaration since 1941, and the delay of over five decades in seeking reconstitution, allowing laches to set in. Courts must be cautious in granting reconstitution petitions, especially for vast properties.