G.R. No. 207159. February 28, 2022
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF EDUARDO BOOC, MERCEDES BOOC, AURELIA BOOC, PEDRO BOOC, FLORENTINO BOOC, AND FELICIANA BOOC, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On July 9, 1998, respondents (heirs of the Boocs) filed a petition for reconstitution of Original Certificates of Title (OCT) for Lot Nos. 4749, 4765, and 4777 in Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu. They alleged that the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu, in 1930 Decisions, declared the late Eduardo Booc, Mercedes Booc, Aurelia Booc, Pedro Booc, and Florentino Booc as the registered owners, and corresponding decrees (Nos. 531394, 531367, 531382) were issued in 1934. The OCTs were allegedly lost or destroyed during World War II, as certified by the Register of Deeds. Respondents presented certified copies of the 1930 Decisions, the decrees, technical descriptions, certifications from the Clerk of Court that no prior reconstitution petitions were filed, and sketch plans. The lots are currently possessed by the Mactan Export Processing Zone Authority (MEPZA) and the Mactan International Airport Authority (MIAA). The Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) opposed, claiming the government, through its predecessor (Civil Aeronautics Administration), bought the lots from Julian, Modesta, and Paulino Cuizon in 1957-1958 and has since possessed them. MCIAA argued respondents were not real parties-in-interest and that the petition was premature, requiring an ordinary action to resolve ownership. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the reconstitution, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Republic, through the OSG, appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Decision granting the petition for judicial reconstitution of the alleged lost OCTs over the subject lots.

RULING

Yes. The petition for reconstitution was properly denied. The Supreme Court reversed the CA Decision and dismissed the petition for reconstitution.
The Court held that a petition for reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 is not a litigious proceeding to determine ownership but a mere re-issuance of a lost or destroyed certificate of title. For judicial reconstitution to prosper, the petitioner must be the registered owner or their successor-in-interest, and the certificate must have been in force at the time of loss. The evidence must be sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution.
Here, respondents failed to prove they are the registered owners or successors-in-interest. The 1930 CFI Decisions and subsequent decrees only established initial registration in favor of the Boocs but did not conclusively prove that OCTs were actually issued. The Certification from the Register of Deeds merely stated the titles were “not on file,” not that they were previously issued and subsequently lost. Respondents did not present a single copy of the alleged OCTs, nor secondary evidence from the LRA’s files (like a certificate of title or a memorandum of encumbrance) to prove prior issuance. The testimony of their witness, Ismael Limalima, was insufficient and unreliable, as he had no personal knowledge of the alleged loss during WWII and only learned of the missing title in 1976.
Furthermore, the government, through MCIAA, has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the lots in the concept of an owner since the 1950s, as evidenced by deeds of sale, tax declarations, and its use for public purpose (airport operations). This possession constitutes an extraordinary defense of acquisitive prescription, which can be set up against a purported registered owner. The action for reconstitution, being in rem, allowed MCIAA to raise this defense. Given the government’s vested ownership through prescription, reconstituting a title in favor of respondents would be futile and unjust.
The Court also noted that respondents’ proper remedy for the alleged loss of a duplicate certificate was an action for the issuance of a new duplicate under Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, not judicial reconstitution under R.A. 26.