G.R. No. 214223 . January 10, 2023.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES JOVITO AND KATHLEEN BERCEDE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents Spouses Jovito and Kathleen Bercede filed a Petition for Reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title No. 4275 (OCT No. 4275) covering a 345-square meter parcel of land, Lot No. 199 of the Cadastral Survey of Carcar, Cebu. They claimed ownership through a series of deeds of sale originating from the original owners, spouses Teofisto Alesna and Faustina Esmeña. They alleged both the original and owner’s duplicate copies of OCT No. 4275 were lost or destroyed. In support, they presented a photocopy of OCT No. 4275, tax documents, deeds of sale, and a Certification from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) stating the title was not available as it was lost or destroyed during the last World War. The Republic of the Philippines opposed, arguing non-compliance with Republic Act No. 26 (RA 26), specifically the insufficiency of the photocopy as a source for reconstitution, noting apparent erasures and alterations on the photocopy, and the lack of a certified technical description of the property. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC, holding the photocopy was a valid source under RA 26, the issue of alterations was raised too late, and notice requirements were substantially complied with.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the RTC Judgment granting the Petition for Reconstitution of OCT No. 4275.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the CA Decision and Resolution and dismissed the Petition for Reconstitution. The Court held that respondents failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of RA 26. The photocopy of OCT No. 4275 was not a valid source for reconstitution under Section 2(f) of RA 26, as it was not an “authentic copy” required by the law and its implementing guidelines; it bore apparent erasures and intercalations, casting doubt on its authenticity. Furthermore, respondents failed to submit a certified technical description of the property as required by the LRA, which is indispensable for accurately identifying the land. The Court also found that respondents did not adequately prove the loss of both the original and the owner’s duplicate copy of the title, as the LRA Certification only referenced the original copy on file. The State is not estopped from raising these issues even if first raised on appeal, as it involves matters of public policy and non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements.