GR 195726; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 195726, November 20, 2017
MARCELINO DELA PAZ, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Marcelino Dela Paz filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 206714, covering a parcel of land in Quezon City. He alleged the original title was destroyed in a fire at the Quezon City Hall in 1988 and the owner’s duplicate copy was subsequently lost. His claim of ownership was based on a 2005 Deed of Absolute Sale from the heirs of the original registered owner, Luz Dela Paz. In support, he submitted a photocopy of the TCT, tax declarations, tax receipts, a subdivision plan, and a Land Registration Authority (LRA) report stating the technical description could be used for reconstitution.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition, ordering the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the title based on the submitted subdivision plan and technical description. The Republic appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the RTC’s order for reconstitution due to insufficient evidence.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for reconstitution. Reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 is a strict statutory proceeding that demands conclusive proof of the former existence and subsequent loss of the certificate of title. The petitioner failed to meet this burden. The submitted photocopy of TCT No. 206714 was not a certified true copy from the Registry of Deeds, and the certification regarding the fire merely stated the title was “allegedly registered” without confirming its actual issuance or existence in the records. Tax declarations and receipts are inadequate for reconstitution as they are not evidence of title. Furthermore, the unexplained, inordinate delay of nineteen years from the alleged fire to the filing of the petition cast serious doubt on the merits of the claim. The LRA report, while noting the technical description could be inscribed, did not certify that the title was previously issued or that the land was covered by a valid original certificate. Consequently, the totality of evidence did not establish the pre-loss existence of the title with the requisite certainty, warranting denial of the petition.