Lawyerly

GR No. 187378

2013-09-30

RAMONITO O. ACAAC v. MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated September 30, 2008 and Resolution[3] dated March 9, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 00284-MIN which reversed and set aside the Decision[4] dated November 26, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Branch 2 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 4684 for injunction.

GR No. 170375

2010-07-07

REPUBLIC v. MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Reconstitution denotes a restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form or condition. The purpose of the reconstitution of title or any document is to have the same reproduced, after observing the procedure prescribed by law, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred.[151] Reconstitution is another special proceeding where the concept of cause of action in an ordinary civil action finds no application.

GR No. 175788

2009-06-30

ENRIQUITA ANGAT v. REPUBLIC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The nature of the action for reconstitution of a certificate of title under Republic Act No. 26, entitled "An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate of Title Lost or Destroyed," denotes a restoration of the instrument, which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed, in its original form and condition.[30] The purpose of such an action is merely to have the certificate of title reproduced, after proper proceedings, in the same form it was in when its loss or destruction occurred.[31] The same Republic Act No. 26 specifies the requisites to be met for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution of a certificate of title. As we held in Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Velasco,[32] failure to comply with any of these jurisdictional requirements for a petition for reconstitution renders the proceedings null and void. Thus, in obtaining a new title in lieu of the lost or destroyed one, Republic Act No. 26 laid down procedures which must be strictly followed in view of the danger that reconstitution could be the source of anomalous titles or unscrupulously availed of as an easy substitute for original registration of title proceedings.

GR No. 175788

2009-06-30

ENRIQUITA ANGAT v. REPUBLIC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The real property tax receipts in the name of Federico for the years 1989 to 1998 deserve little probative value. There is no showing that real property taxes were paid by Federico and/or Enriquita, or their alleged predecessors-in-interest prior to 1989. Despite Federico and Enriquita's claim of possession of the subject property since 1955, Federico himself admitted that he first paid the real estate taxes on the subject property only in 1989. Realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership but are mere indicia of possession in the concept of owners.[36] Neither are realty tax payment receipts sufficient to warrant reconstitution.

GR No. 173210

2009-04-24

REPUBLIC v. MACARIA L. TUASTUMBAN

TINGA, J.

The governing law for judicial reconstitution of titles is R.A. No. 26. Sections 2[18] and 3[19] of RA 26 enumerate the sources upon which reconstitution should issue. Section 2 refers to source documents for reconstitution of the original certificate of title while Sec. 3 refers to sources for reconstitution of transfer certificates of title. The requirements of Secs. 2 and 3 are almost identical, referring to documents from official sources which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-interest.[20] In Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[21] the Court ruled that "any other document" in Secs. 2(f) and 3(f) of RA 26 refers to documents similar to those previously enumerated therein, that is, those mentioned in Sections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). The Court reiterated this ruling in Heirs of Dizon v. Hon. Discaya[22] and Republic v. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas.[23] The documents alluded to in Secs. 2(f) and 3(f) must be resorted to in the absence of those preceding in order. If the petitioner for reconstitution fails to show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such prior documents and failed to find them, the presentation of the succeeding documents as substitutionary evidence is proscribed.[24]

GR No. 173210

2009-04-24

REPUBLIC v. MACARIA L. TUASTUMBAN

TINGA, J.

is filed by a private party or by the Republic of the Philippines will not relieve respondent, as petitioner in the petition for reconstitution, of his burden of proving not only the loss or destruction of the title sought to be reconstituted but also that at the time the said title was lost or destroyed, he or his predecessor-in-interest was the registered owner thereof. The Republic is not estopped from assailing the decision granting the petition if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.[34]

GR No. 172848

2008-12-10

REPUBLIC v. JOSE VICTORINO K. CASTRO

TINGA, J.

Third. The courts a quo make much of the fact that the Republic, through the OSG or the provincial prosecutor, failed to interpose any opposition/objection to the evidence presented by the heirs, and that it did not also present any evidence against the claims of the heirs. It has been held, however, that the Republic of the Philippines is not estopped from assailing the decision granting the petition for reconstitution if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.[40]

GR No. 155703

2008-09-08

REPUBLIC v. DOMINADOR SANTUA

NACHURA, J.

The Court has already settled in a number of cases that, following the principle of ejusdem generis in statutory construction, "any document" mentioned in Section 3 should be interpreted to refer to documents similar to those previously enumerated therein.[11] As aptly observed by the petitioner, the documents enumerated in Section 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are documents that had been issued or are on file with the Register of Deeds, thus, highly credible.

GR No. 173525

2008-03-28

REPUBLIC v. GERTRUDES B. VERZOSA

TINGA, J,

It is correct, as petitioner avers, that courts must exercise the greatest caution in entertaining petitions for reconstitution of destroyed or lost certificates of title. In Republic v. Holazo,[16] the Court warned that:The tampering of genuine certificates of title and the issuance of fake ones are a widespread malaise that has seriously threatened the very stability of the Torrens system. Worse, the courts have been, at times, unwitting accomplices in these acts of corruption. In Alabang, supra, we sounded this admonition:

GR NO. 166899

2006-08-10

HEIRS OF PASTORA LOZANO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The reconstitution of the title or deed is simply the re-issuance of the copy of the certificate of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition.[39] The purpose of the reconstitution of title or any document is to have the same reproduced, after observing the procedure provided by law, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred.[40]

	GR No. 187378 2013-09-30	RAMONITO O. ACAAC v. MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated September 30, 2008 and Resolution[3] dated March 9, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 00284-MIN which reversed and set aside the Decision[4] dated November 26, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Branch 2 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 4684 for injunction.
	GR No. 170375 2010-07-07	REPUBLIC v. MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Reconstitution denotes a restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form or condition. The purpose of the reconstitution of title or any document is to have the same reproduced, after observing the procedure prescribed by law, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred.[151] Reconstitution is another special proceeding where the concept of cause of action in an ordinary civil action finds no application.
	GR No. 175788 2009-06-30	ENRIQUITA ANGAT v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The nature of the action for reconstitution of a certificate of title under Republic Act No. 26, entitled "An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate of Title Lost or Destroyed," denotes a restoration of the instrument, which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed, in its original form and condition.[30] The purpose of such an action is merely to have the certificate of title reproduced, after proper proceedings, in the same form it was in when its loss or destruction occurred.[31] The same Republic Act No. 26 specifies the requisites to be met for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution of a certificate of title. As we held in Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Velasco,[32] failure to comply with any of these jurisdictional requirements for a petition for reconstitution renders the proceedings null and void. Thus, in obtaining a new title in lieu of the lost or destroyed one, Republic Act No. 26 laid down procedures which must be strictly followed in view of the danger that reconstitution could be the source of anomalous titles or unscrupulously availed of as an easy substitute for original registration of title proceedings.
	GR No. 175788 2009-06-30	ENRIQUITA ANGAT v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The real property tax receipts in the name of Federico for the years 1989 to 1998 deserve little probative value. There is no showing that real property taxes were paid by Federico and/or Enriquita, or their alleged predecessors-in-interest prior to 1989. Despite Federico and Enriquita's claim of possession of the subject property since 1955, Federico himself admitted that he first paid the real estate taxes on the subject property only in 1989. Realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership but are mere indicia of possession in the concept of owners.[36] Neither are realty tax payment receipts sufficient to warrant reconstitution.
	GR No. 173210 2009-04-24	REPUBLIC v. MACARIA L. TUASTUMBAN TINGA, J.
The governing law for judicial reconstitution of titles is R.A. No. 26. Sections 2[18] and 3[19] of RA 26 enumerate the sources upon which reconstitution should issue. Section 2 refers to source documents for reconstitution of the original certificate of title while Sec. 3 refers to sources for reconstitution of transfer certificates of title. The requirements of Secs. 2 and 3 are almost identical, referring to documents from official sources which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-interest.[20] In Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[21] the Court ruled that "any other document" in Secs. 2(f) and 3(f) of RA 26 refers to documents similar to those previously enumerated therein, that is, those mentioned in Sections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). The Court reiterated this ruling in Heirs of Dizon v. Hon. Discaya[22] and Republic v. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas.[23] The documents alluded to in Secs. 2(f) and 3(f) must be resorted to in the absence of those preceding in order. If the petitioner for reconstitution fails to show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such prior documents and failed to find them, the presentation of the succeeding documents as substitutionary evidence is proscribed.[24]
	GR No. 173210 2009-04-24	REPUBLIC v. MACARIA L. TUASTUMBAN TINGA, J.
is filed by a private party or by the Republic of the Philippines will not relieve respondent, as petitioner in the petition for reconstitution, of his burden of proving not only the loss or destruction of the title sought to be reconstituted but also that at the time the said title was lost or destroyed, he or his predecessor-in-interest was the registered owner thereof. The Republic is not estopped from assailing the decision granting the petition if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.[34]
	GR No. 172848 2008-12-10	REPUBLIC v. JOSE VICTORINO K. CASTRO TINGA, J.
Third. The courts a quo make much of the fact that the Republic, through the OSG or the provincial prosecutor, failed to interpose any opposition/objection to the evidence presented by the heirs, and that it did not also present any evidence against the claims of the heirs. It has been held, however, that the Republic of the Philippines is not estopped from assailing the decision granting the petition for reconstitution if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.[40]
	GR No. 155703 2008-09-08	REPUBLIC v. DOMINADOR SANTUA NACHURA, J.
The Court has already settled in a number of cases that, following the principle of ejusdem generis in statutory construction, "any document" mentioned in Section 3 should be interpreted to refer to documents similar to those previously enumerated therein.[11] As aptly observed by the petitioner, the documents enumerated in Section 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are documents that had been issued or are on file with the Register of Deeds, thus, highly credible.
	GR No. 173525 2008-03-28	REPUBLIC v. GERTRUDES B. VERZOSA TINGA, J,
It is correct, as petitioner avers, that courts must exercise the greatest caution in entertaining petitions for reconstitution of destroyed or lost certificates of title. In Republic v. Holazo,[16] the Court warned that:The tampering of genuine certificates of title and the issuance of fake ones are a widespread malaise that has seriously threatened the very stability of the Torrens system. Worse, the courts have been, at times, unwitting accomplices in these acts of corruption. In Alabang, supra, we sounded this admonition:
	GR NO. 166899 2006-08-10	HEIRS OF PASTORA LOZANO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS CALLEJO, SR., J.
The reconstitution of the title or deed is simply the re-issuance of the copy of the certificate of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition.[39] The purpose of the reconstitution of title or any document is to have the same reproduced, after observing the procedure provided by law, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred.[40]

REPUBLIC v. RAFAEL F. HOLAZO