The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for reconstitution of a lost Original Certificate of Title (OCT) cannot be granted without clear and convincing proof that such a title was previously issued. This decision emphasizes the importance of establishing the prior existence of a Torrens title before seeking its reconstitution, protecting the integrity of the Torrens System of land registration in the Philippines. This ensures that reconstitution proceedings are not used to create titles where none previously existed, safeguarding property rights and preventing fraudulent claims.

Lost and Found: When Can a Land Title Be Reconstituted?

This case revolves around a petition filed by Homer and Ma. Susana Dagondon, attorneys-in-fact of Jover P. Dagondon, seeking the reconstitution of an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) for a parcel of land in Camiguin. They claimed the original title was lost or destroyed and sought to reconstitute it based on Decree No. 466085. However, the Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition, arguing that the Dagondons failed to adequately prove the existence of the original title. The central legal question is whether a decree of registration alone, without sufficient proof of a pre-existing OCT, is enough to warrant reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26.

The Court of Appeals (CA) initially dismissed the Republic’s appeal, stating that the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) decision had already become final due to a procedural lapse – the late filing of the motion for reconsideration. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s stance on finality. It emphasized that the doctrine of finality of judgments is not absolute and can be relaxed in cases where substantial justice is at stake. The Court highlighted that strict adherence to procedural rules should not override the need to ensure fairness and prevent potential circumvention of the Torrens System. Considering the significant property involved and the strong merits of the Republic’s case, the Court opted to suspend procedural rules and address the substantive issues.

The Supreme Court then delved into the requirements for judicial reconstitution of Torrens titles, as governed by Republic Act No. (RA) 26. Section 2 of RA 26 explicitly outlines the order of priority for sources of reconstitution, prioritizing the owner’s duplicate, co-owner’s duplicate, certified copies of the title, and authenticated copies of the decree of registration. This section states that:

Section 2. Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:

(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;

(d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued;

(e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and

(f)  Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

Crucially, the Court emphasized that RA 26 presupposes the prior existence of a Torrens title. The purpose of reconstitution is to restore a lost or destroyed title, not to create a new one. Therefore, the party seeking reconstitution must first establish that a certificate of title was indeed issued and subsequently lost or destroyed. In this case, the Dagondons failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that an OCT covering Lot 84 had ever been issued based on Decree No. 466085. Without proof of a pre-existing title, the very foundation for reconstitution under RA 26 was absent.

Even if RA 26 were applicable, the Court found that the Dagondons’ reliance on Decree No. 466085 alone was insufficient. They did not even present a copy of the decree itself as evidence, leaving its contents unknown. Furthermore, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) certification stating that Decree No. 466085 was issued for Lot 84 was deemed inadequate. As the Supreme Court stated in Republic v. Heirs of Ramos:

Moreover, the Certification issued by the LRA stating that Decree No. 190622 was issued for Lot 54 means nothing. The Land Registration Act expressly recognizes two classes of decrees in land registration proceedings, namely, (i) decrees dismissing the application and (ii) decrees of confirmation and registration. In the case at bench, we cannot ascertain from said Certification whether the decree alluded to by the respondents granted or denied Julio Ramos’ claim. Moreover, the LRA’s Certification did not state to whom Lot 54 was decreed. Thus, assuming that Decree No. 190622 is a decree of confirmation, it would be too presumptuous to further assume that the same was issued in the name and in favor of Julio Ramos. Furthermore, said Certification did not indicate the number of the original certificate of title and the date said title was issued. In Tahanan Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals[(203 Phil. 652 [1982])], we held that the absence of any document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title and date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of such petition.

The Court made it clear that an ambiguous LRA certification, without specifying the nature of the decree or the claimant, is not a sufficient basis for reconstituting a title. The certification must provide specific details about the decree, including whether it confirmed or denied the claim, to whom the land was decreed, and the original certificate of title number and issuance date. The absence of these details renders the certification practically meaningless for reconstitution purposes.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and dismissed the Dagondons’ petition for reconstitution. The Court emphasized that reconstitution under RA 26 requires satisfactory proof that the land was previously registered under the Torrens System and that the original title was subsequently lost or destroyed. In this case, the Dagondons failed to meet this burden, rendering RA 26 inapplicable. However, the Court clarified that its decision does not completely extinguish any potential interest the Dagondons may have in the land. They are free to pursue other appropriate legal remedies to establish their claim, if any, following the correct procedures and legal principles.

The Court provided guidance, citing Republic v. Heirs of Sanchez, stating that the proper procedure might involve filing a petition for the cancellation and re-issuance of the decree, followed by the issuance of an OCT pursuant to the reissued decree. This process acknowledges that as long as a decree has not been transcribed in the registration book of the Register of Deeds, the court retains jurisdiction over the matter. This remedy may be available to the heirs of the original adjudicate, who can file the petition in representation of the decedent.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a petition for reconstitution of a land title can be granted based solely on a decree of registration, without sufficient proof that an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) was previously issued and subsequently lost or destroyed.
What is the Torrens System?	The Torrens System is a land registration system that aims to provide security and stability to land ownership by creating a public record of land titles. It operates on the principle of indefeasibility, meaning that a title, once registered, is generally protected from claims by others.
What is RA 26?	RA 26, or Republic Act No. 26, is a law that provides a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title that have been lost or destroyed. It outlines the requirements and process for restoring a lost title based on available records and evidence.
What are the sources for reconstitution under RA 26?	RA 26 specifies the order of priority for sources of reconstitution, including the owner’s duplicate, co-owner’s duplicate, certified copies of the title, authenticated copies of the decree of registration, and other relevant documents on file with the Registry of Deeds.
Why was the petition for reconstitution denied in this case?	The petition was denied because the Dagondons failed to provide sufficient proof that an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) covering Lot 84 had ever been issued. The Court emphasized that reconstitution requires evidence of a pre-existing title that was subsequently lost or destroyed.
What is the significance of Decree No. 466085 in this case?	Decree No. 466085 was the basis for the Dagondons’ claim that a title had been issued for the property. However, they failed to present a copy of the decree or provide sufficient details about its contents, making it an insufficient basis for reconstitution.
What does the LRA certification mean in the context of reconstitution?	The LRA certification stating that a decree was issued for a particular lot is not enough for reconstitution. The certification must also specify whether the decree confirmed or denied the claim, to whom the land was decreed, and the original certificate of title number and issuance date.
What other legal remedies are available to the Dagondons?	The Dagondons can potentially file a petition for the cancellation and re-issuance of Decree No. 466085, followed by the issuance of an OCT pursuant to the reissued decree. This remedy is available as long as the decree has not been transcribed in the registration book of the Register of Deeds.

This Supreme Court decision serves as a clear reminder of the stringent requirements for reconstituting land titles in the Philippines. It underscores the need for diligent record-keeping and the importance of presenting compelling evidence to support claims of lost or destroyed titles. This ruling reinforces the integrity of the Torrens System and protects against fraudulent attempts to create titles where none previously existed.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Republic of the Philippines vs. Homer and Ma. Susana Dagondon, G.R. No. 210540, April 19, 2016