G.R. No. 173210 ; April 24, 2009
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. MACARIA L. TUASTUMBAN, Respondent.

FACTS

On 8 November 1999, respondent Macaria L. Tuastumban filed a petition for reconstitution of the lost Original Certificate of Title (OCT) covering Lot No. 7129, Flr-133, Talisay-Minglanilla Estate under Patent No. 43619 in the name of the Legal Heirs of Sofia Lazo. The OCT was allegedly lost or destroyed during World War II. Respondent anchored her petition on Section 2(d) of Republic Act No. 26 ( R.A. No. 26 ). She claimed to have bought the property from the heirs of Sofia Lazo, her relatives, as evidenced by an Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs with Waiver of Inheritance Rights and Deed of Absolute Sale, and that she has been occupying, possessing, and paying realty taxes on the land. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 5, granted the petition on 11 December 2000, ordering the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the lost OCT.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). Initially, the CA, in a Decision dated 20 February 2006, reversed the RTC, holding that respondent did not properly utilize the sources of reconstitution under R.A. No. 26 , having presented only a Certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) that a patent had been issued, and failed to prove the loss of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the best source for reconstitution. However, upon respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, the CA issued an Amended Decision dated 23 June 2006, which reversed its earlier ruling. The Amended Decision found that respondent had substantially complied with the requirements for reconstitution, noting government records from the CENRO and a Report from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) that upheld the prior existence of a title. The CA also noted the absence of opposition from private claimants and the failure of the Republic, represented by the Cebu City Prosecutor, to present evidence or object to respondent’s offer of evidence. The CA affirmed the RTC judgment with modification, stating that what was to be reconstituted was a lost Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), not an OCT, in favor of the Legal Heirs of Sofia Lazo. The Republic filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for reconstitution of title despite alleged non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Republic Act No. 26 , specifically: (1) the failure to present the required documents under Section 2; (2) the failure to duly establish the loss of the owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of title; and (3) the lack of proof that a certificate of title covering Lot No. 7129 had been previously issued.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 June 2006. The Court held that the reconstitution was proper.
The Court found that the subject property was part of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate, governed by Act No. 1120 (The Friar Lands Act). Under this law, the government purchased the estate and sold portions to actual possessors. Sofia Lazo, a possessor, was granted Sales Patent No. 43619 on 21 July 1938. The issuance of a sales patent under the Friar Lands Act leads to the execution of a Deed of Conveyance by the government, which is then registered to produce a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), not an Original Certificate of Title (OCT). Therefore, the CA correctly modified the RTC order to direct the reconstitution of a TCT.
On the requirements for reconstitution, the Court ruled that respondent sufficiently established the loss of the certificate of title. The Register of Deeds of Cebu certified that no certificate of title for Lot No. 7129 existed in its records and that all deeds/records were either burned or lost during World War II. This official certification was prima facie evidence of the loss. The Republic’s representative at the trial, the Cebu City Prosecutor, did not object to this certification or present any contrary evidence. The allegation of loss in the petition was therefore deemed admitted.
Regarding the sources for reconstitution, the Court held that respondent properly resorted to Section 2(f) of R.A. No. 26 (“any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title”). The best source, the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, was unavailable due to its loss. Respondent presented competent secondary sources: a CENRO Certification confirming the issuance of Sales Patent No. 43619; an LRA Report verifying the plan and technical description of the lot and indicating that the entire estate was covered by a decree of registration; a Certification from the Register of Deeds attesting to the loss of records; and supporting documents like the deed of sale and tax declarations. These documents, taken together, constituted substantial evidence of the existence and subsequent loss of the title, warranting reconstitution. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s factual findings, affirmed by the CA, are generally binding, especially in the absence of strong contrary evidence from the Republic.