G.R. No. 212388, December 10, 2014.
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Heirs of Spouses Donato Sanchez and Juana Meneses, represented by Rodolfo S. Aguinaldo, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents, heirs of Spouses Donato Sanchez and Juana Meneses, filed an amended petition for reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 45361 covering Lot No. 854 of the Cadastral Survey of Dagupan under Republic Act No. 26. They alleged that OCT No. 45361 was issued to their predecessors-in-interest pursuant to Decree No. 41812 based on a 1930 Court of First Instance Decision; the title was missing, preventing registration of a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition; and the Register of Deeds (RD) certified that copies of the decree and title were not in its records. The trial court gave due course to the petition. The Land Registration Authority (LRA) required submission of specific documents, including a certification from the RD of the title’s loss, a certified technical description, and a sepia film plan. After delays, respondents presented in evidence a certified true copy of the 1930 Cadastral Decision adjudicating the lot to the spouses and a certified copy of the Registrar’s Index Card noting OCT No. 45361 under Donato Sanchez’s name. The LRA reported that Decree No. 418121 was issued for the lot but a copy was unavailable, and it verified the plan and technical description. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition, finding no proof that OCT No. 45361 was actually issued pursuant to the decree. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding the evidence sufficient under Section 2(f) of R.A. No. 26, particularly noting that subsequent Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT Nos. 10202, 44365, and 80792) bore notations that the lot was originally registered as OCT No. 45361 pursuant to Decree No. 418121. The Republic appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reconstitution of OCT No. 45361 based on the evidence presented by the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the RTC decision dismissing the petition for reconstitution. The Court held that reconstitution was not warranted for two main reasons. First, the respondents failed to present clear and convincing proof that OCT No. 45361 was actually issued. The 1930 Decision and the Registrar’s Index Card did not mention Decree No. 418121 as the basis for the title’s issuance. Second, even assuming the OCT existed, Section 15 of R.A. No. 26 requires proof that the certificate was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed. The existence of subsequent derivative titles (TCT Nos. 10202, 44365, and 80792) clearly indicated that OCT No. 45361 was no longer in force, having been cancelled. The notations on these derivative titles did not authenticate the OCT’s issuance, as the RD had no supporting records and could not certify the OCT was in force. The Court found it suspicious that reconstitution was sought when the lot had already been transferred to others, rendering a reconstituted title of no value to the respondents. The proper remedy, if any, would be a petition for cancellation and re-issuance of the decree under the doctrine established in Cacho v. Court of Appeals.