GR 197315; (October, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 197315 ; October 10, 2012
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Angel T. Domingo and Benjamin T. Domingo, Respondents.
FACTS
Angel Casimiro M. Tinio inherited a parcel of land from his sister, Trinidad T. Ramoso, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 17472. In 1978, Tinio sold the property to respondents Angel and Benjamin Domingo, delivering to them the owner’s duplicate copy of the title. When the Domingos inquired with the Register of Deeds, the original copy of OCT No. 17472 could not be found and was deemed lost. Consequently, the Domingos filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of the original title pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, using the owner’s duplicate certificate as their source.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition, ordering the reconstitution. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed, arguing that the Domingos failed to comply with the notice requirements under Sections 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26 by not notifying the heirs of the original registered owners (Spouses Ramoso) and a certain Senen J. Gabaldon, whose names did not appear on the face of the owner’s duplicate title. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s order, holding that Sections 12 and 13 were inapplicable as the reconstitution was sourced from the owner’s duplicate under Section 2(a) of the law.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the reconstitution order despite the alleged non-compliance with the notice requirements under Sections 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26 .
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the distinction between the two sets of procedures under R.A. No. 26 for reconstituting lost titles, which depend entirely on the source document used. The law enumerates hierarchical sources for reconstitution in Sections 2 and 3. Crucially, it provides separate procedural requirements: Section 10 governs petitions based on the owner’s duplicate certificate (a source under Section 2(a)), while Sections 12 and 13 govern petitions based on other sources, such as certified copies from the registry or documents on file.
Here, the reconstitution was explicitly and properly based on the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 17472, a source under Section 2(a). Therefore, the applicable procedure was under Section 10 of R.A. No. 26 . The notice requirement under Section 10 only mandates publication and mailing to parties whose names appear in the certificate of title to be reconstituted. Since the names of the Ramoso heirs and Gabaldon did not appear on the face of the owner’s duplicate title, the Domingos had no obligation to notify them specifically. The RTC’s published notice, which contained the title number, the registered owner’s name, and the names of interested parties appearing on the title, was sufficient to vest it with jurisdiction. The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that the stricter notice requirements under Sections 12 and 13 are irrelevant and inapplicable to a petition sourced from an owner’s duplicate certificate.