On  February 15,  1954, Irenea Lasit  and Julian  Mayol filed in  the Court of First Instance of Cebu  a petition praying that certain plans  and  technical  descriptions covering lots Nos. 2545-A and- 2545-B  be ordered reconstituted and, thereafter, an order be issued  directing the Chief, General  Land Registration Office, to issue  the  corresponding  decrees  on  the  basis  of  said  plans  and descriptions (G.L.R.O. Record  No.  4030, Case No. 3). Domingo Mayol and Emilio Mayol filed separately an opposition  to said  petition.   During the hearing,  petitioners  submitted  certain documentary  evidence which showed that  it merely represents duplicate copies of the decisions, plans and technical descriptions on which they wanted the court to base the issuance of the decree but that* the originals thereof are not found in the record of the case,  whereupon oppositors  filed  a motion to dismiss contending that, since  the petition filed by petitioners is virtually  a motion for  reconstitution of a judicial record and the period  for such purpose has  expired since 1947, the court had no longer jurisdiction to act on  said petition.   Oppositors therefore prayed  that the petition  be denied.  Their motion  for dismissal as well  as  their motion for  reconsideration  having been  denied, oppositors have come before this Court by  way of certiorari alleging that respondent  Judge  acted  without jurisdiction or with grave  abuse of discretion.

The  question  to  be  determined is  whether   the  petition filed by respondents  Irenea Lasit and Julian Mayol is one which seeks the issuance of a decree for registration of certain lots  pursuant  to  a decision already  rendered or whether it is a motion for  reconstitution of a court record which may serve as basis for the issuance of said decree.

It appears that the lots in question were adjudicated on February 27, 1934 in  the registration proceedings instituted  by  the "El Seminario  de San Carlos  de Cebu" as shown by a  certificate  issued by the clerk of court of the Court of  First  Instance of Cebu  (Annex 2), but it does not  appear in the record the names  of the persons to whom the same  were  adjudicated  nor the originals  of the decisions covering  the adjudicated lots.  Said  certificate  merely states that on page 160  of the court record there appears an entry regarding the adjudication of the above-mentioned lots.   It  further appears that  sometime in December, 1934 a petition for subdivision  of the aforesaid lots  was filed on behalf  of the interested parties praying for authority to have the lots subdivided for the reason that the  owners had already agreed to divide them and have the titles issued in their  names,  and to that effect  they recommended that  one Higinio  B. Alfaro be commissioned to make the subdivision, but there is nothing in the record to show that said subdivision plan  has ever been  made  for  which  reason petitioners have  ordered the making  of a  new  subdivision plan  and asked the court  to  approve and  consider them  irt connection  with their  petition.  It therefore appears clear  that the record of the court  in so far as said  lots are concerned is  really incomplete for neither the  original decision  nor  the original subdivision plan appear therein, and yet petitioners now want the court tp issue the  corresponding  decree on the basis merely of  duplicate copies  that  are  in  their possession.  This  is indeed a  petition for reconstitution that comes within the purview of Section 29  of Act 3110. In  the case  of Ambat vs.  Director  of  Lands, 49  Off. Gaz.,  129, this Court said: 

"A judgment rendered before  the  war, in a case pending appeal before the Court of Appeals, does not become final  because of the failure of the  losing party  to  ask for the  reconstitution  of  the records in the  appellate  court within  the  time prescribed by law for  reconstitution of judicial  records.  The  duty  to reconstitute lies upon both  parties to the action.  If a party  in whose favor a judgment is  rendered fails to ask for the reconstitution  of the records of  the case  wherein the  judgment is  rendered, he  impliedly waives, by  his voluntary  omission to ask  for  reconstitution, his right  to the favorable judgment;  and  if  the period  for the  reconstitution has already expired,  section 29 of Act No. 3110 is applicable, the  parties  being  understood  as  having waived  the right to reconstitution and having the  right to file  their respective actions anew."

It appearing that the period for reconstitution  fixed by. the law  has long expired,  respondents  are deemed to have  waived  the  effects of the decision  rendered  in  their favor  and their only alternative is to  file  an action anew for the  registration in  their  names of  the  lots  in question.

Wherefore, petition is granted.  Respondent Judge  is hereby ordered to desist from further  hearing the  petition of respondents Irenea Lasit and Julian Mayol,  and all proceedings heretofore had on said petition are hereby annulled, without pronouncement  as to  costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon,  Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes,  A., Jugo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B.  L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.