G.R. No. 175788 ; June 30, 2009
ENRIQUITA ANGAT and the LEGAL HEIRS OF FEDERICO ANGAT, Petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Enriquita Angat and Federico Angat filed a Petition for Reconstitution of the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-4399 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naic, Cavite. They claimed ownership of a 3,033,846-square meter parcel of land in Ternate, Cavite, registered under TCT No. T-4399 issued on October 6, 1955. They alleged that the original copy of the title was destroyed in a fire that razed the Cavite Register of Deeds office on June 7, 1959, but they possessed the owner’s duplicate copy. They attached a Certification from the Register of Deeds confirming the fire and the non-existence of the original title in their records. The RTC granted the petition. The Republic appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, finding the petition insufficient for failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of Republic Act No. 26 . Specifically, the petition did not state the names and addresses of the occupants, the owners of adjoining properties, and all persons interested in the property. The notices sent to the adjoining owners identified in the survey plan (Ambrocio Arca, heirs of Mariano Angat, Santiago de Guia, and Palikpikan Creek) were returned unserved. Furthermore, the Certification from the Register of Deeds stated that not only the original title but also the supporting papers and entry books were destroyed, meaning the reconstitution could not be based on the sources listed in Section 3 of R.A. No. 26 , but must rely on the owner’s duplicate under Section 2, which imposes stricter jurisdictional requirements. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s Order granting the petition for reconstitution of TCT No. T-4399.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals denying the petition for reconstitution. The petition was fatally defective for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26 . The petition failed to state the names and addresses of the occupants and all persons having an interest in the property, as required by Section 12(e). The notices sent to the adjoining owners were returned unserved, and there was no proof that the notices reached all interested parties, violating Section 13. Moreover, the reconstitution could not proceed under Section 3 of R.A. No. 26 because the Register of Deeds’ Certification confirmed the destruction of all supporting documents and entry books, which are the sources enumerated in Section 3(f). Therefore, reconstitution could only be based on the owner’s duplicate certificate under Section 2(f), which requires that the certificate “is in due form.” The owner’s duplicate title presented was suspect on its face as it covered an extraordinarily large parcel of land (over 300 hectares) and was issued in 1955 to petitioners who were then very young, despite the land allegedly being inherited from their grandfather and father. The petition also failed to allege that no deeds or instruments affecting the property were pending registration, as required by Section 12(g). The RTC did not acquire jurisdiction due to these fatal omissions, rendering its order granting reconstitution void. The Supreme Court also denied petitioners’ invocation of certiorari under Rule 65, as the errors committed were errors of judgment, not jurisdiction.