G.R. No. L-60487 May 21, 1988
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ROBERTO A. MIGUEL, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an application for land registration filed by Roberto A. Miguel over a parcel of land in Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Miguel traced his claim to a possessory information title allegedly granted to Ambrocio Mallupa in 1894 under the Spanish Mortgage Law. Upon Mallupa’s death, the land was inherited and subsequently sold, with Miguel ultimately acquiring a portion. The original possessory information title was claimed to be lost. Miguel’s application relied on secondary evidence: a xerox copy of a typewritten document bearing certifications from the Register of Deeds regarding its reconstitution. The trial court granted the application, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the secondary evidence admissible and sufficient to prove the existence of the Spanish title and the requisite possession.
The Republic, through the Director of Lands, opposed the registration, asserting the land as part of the public domain. It filed a petition for review, initially late, but the Supreme Court granted leave due to the considerable area and value of the property involved. The Republic challenged the appellate court’s decision, arguing it was not supported by evidence and constituted grave abuse of discretion, particularly in its acceptance of the secondary evidence for the lost title.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the registration of the land in favor of Miguel based on the secondary evidence presented for the alleged possessory information title.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found that the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in accepting the secondary evidence of the lost possessory information title. The proof of loss was unworthy of credence. The narrative of the loss—that the original title was entrusted to a real estate broker, Antonio Martinez, who then lost it—was deemed inconceivable given the document’s age and value, and the lack of urgent necessity for its surrender. Notably, Martinez was never presented as a witness to corroborate the loss. Furthermore, the documentary evidence showed inconsistencies, such as a receipt for the title predating the written authority given to the broker.
The Court emphasized the need for extreme caution given the prevalence of fake Spanish titles, a concern that prompted Presidential Decree No. 892, which outlawed such titles unless authenticated in proper proceedings. The secondary evidence presented, a xerox copy of a typewritten document with certifications, was insufficient to establish the existence and validity of the title. The Court also noted that Miguel, a lawyer, lacked due diligence in relying on such dubious evidence without verifying the required twenty years of continuous, actual, public, and adverse possession. Consequently, the application for registration was denied, and the subject property was declared part of the public domain.