9/26/2017 G.R. No.

213209

TodayisTuesday,September26,2017

Custom Search

FIRSTDIVISION

January16,2017

G.R.No.213209

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Petitioner
vs.

GERTRUDESV.SUSI,Respondent.

DECISION

PERLASBERNABE,J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1assailing the Decision2 dated February 13, 2014 and the
Resolution3datedJune25,2014oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.127144,whichupheldtheOrder4
datedJuly5,2012oftheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity,Branch77(RTC):(a)denyingpetitionerRepublicof
the Philippines' (Republic) Motion to Vacate Judgment in LRC Case No. Q20493(05) and (b) upholding the
Decision5 dated January 12, 2011, granting respondent Gertrudes V. Susi's (Susi) petition for reconstitution of
TransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.118999.

TheFacts

On September 27, 2005 Susi filed before the RTC a verified Petition 6 for reconstitution of TCT No. 118999
purportedlyregisteredinhername,CoveringLot257ofplanPsu32606locatedmBarrio(nowBarangay)Talanay,
QuezonCity(QC),withanareaof240,269squaremeters(subjectland).SheclaimedthattheoriginalcopyofTCT
No.118999wasdestroyedbythefirethatguttedtheRegistryofDeedsofQuezonCity(RDQC)onJune11,19888
hence, the petition based on the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 118999,9 docketed as LRC Case No. Q
20493(05).

Findingthepetitiontobesufficientinformandsubstance,theRTCissuedanOrder10datedOctober13,2005:(a)
setting the case for initial hearing on February 2, 2006 (b) directing that the concerned government offices be
furnishedacopythereofand(c)directingthatthesaidorderbepublishedintheOfficialGazetteonceaweekfor
two(2)consecutiveweeksandpostedatleastthirty(30)dayspriortothescheduledhearingatthemainentranceof
the Quezon City Hall, the bulletin boards of the RTC, as well as the Sheriffs Office of the R TC of QC, and the
BarangayHallofthebarangaywherethesubjectlandissituated. 11ThenoticewaspublishedintheDecember19
and26,2005issuesoftheOfficialGazette(Vol.101,Nos.51and52),12andpostedasrequired.13

OnJanuary16,2006,theLandRegistrationAuthority(LRA)filedwiththeRTCaManifestation14datedDecember5,
2005statingthatrespondentfiledsimilarpetitionsforreconstitutioncoveringthesubjectlandbeforeBranches88
and220ofthesameRTC,forwhichithadpreviouslyissuedReportsdatedMarch1,199515andDecember12,199
5,16respectively.

OnFebruary2,2006,Susipresentedproofofthejurisdictional

requirements without any opposition. 17 The City Government of QC (QC Government) thereafter filed an
Opposition18datedFebruary3,2006onthegroundofresjudicata.19However,thelatterwassubsequentlydeclared
tobewithoutanylocusstanditoopposethereconstitutionpetition.20

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_213209_2017.html 1/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 213209
After Susi was allowed to formally offer her evidence,21 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its
appearanceinthecase,andmanifestedthatithaddeputizedtheOfficeoftheCityProsecutorofQCtoappearon
itsbehalf,subjecttoitssupervisionandcontrol.22

TheRTCRuling

InaDecision23datedJanuary12,2011(January12,2011Decision),theRTCgrantedSusi'spetition,anddirected
theRDQCtoreconstitutethelost/destroyedoriginalcopyofTCTNo.118999.24

TheRTCruledthatthepresentationoftheowner'scopyofTCTNo.11899925andtheCertification26fromtheRD
QCthattheoriginalofTCTNo.118999wasburnedduringthefirethatrazedtheQCHallonJune11,1988were
sufficient to warrant the reconstitution sought. It held that the subject petition was not barred by the dismissal by
Branch 220 of the same RTC of a similar petition anchored on her failure to: (a) comply with the technical
requirementsofthelaw,specifically,heromissiontoallegemattersrequiredunderSections11and12ofRepublic
ActNo.(RA)2627and(b)convincethecourtthatTCTNo.118999soughttobereconstitutedwasvalidandexisting
atthetimeitwasdestroyed,holdingthatbothobjectionshavebeensufficientlyovercomeinthepresentcase.28

Dissatisfied,theQCGovernmentfiledamotionforreconsideration,29whiletheRepublic,throughtheOSG,filedits
Notice of Appeal,30 which were both denied in an Order31 dated July 8, 2011. The QC Government's subsequent
Notice of Appeal32 was also denied in an Order33 dated September 15, 2011, on the grounds that (a) it has no
authoritytoappearortobringordefendactionsonbehalfoftheRepublicand(b)theappealwasbelatedlyfiled,
hence,notperfected. TheRTClikewisedeclaredtheJanuary12,2011Decisionashavingattainedfinality.
1wphi1

OnOctober25,2011,theRepublic,throughtheOSG,filedaMotiontoVacateJudgment,34insistingthattheJanuary
12,2011Decisionshouldbesetasideandvacatedonthegroundofresjudicata.35OnMarch8,2012,Sunnyside
Heights Homeowner's Association, Inc. moved36to join the OSG's motion, claiming to be registered owners and
occupantsofvariousportionsofthesubjectland.

Meanwhile,onMarch31,2011,theLRAfiledaManifestation37(a)expressingitsunwillingnesstocomplywiththe
directivecontainedintheJanuary12,2011Decisionand(b)prayingthattheRTCsetasidethesameanddismiss
Susi's petition on the ground that her owner's duplicate of TCT No. 118999 is of doubtful authenticity.38
Consequently, the LRA maintained that there was a need to comply with the mandatory and jurisdictional
requirementsunderSections3(f),12,and13ofRA26,withoutwhichtheRTCdidnothavejurisdictionoverthe
subjectpetition.39

InanOrder40datedJuly5,2012(July5,2012Order),theRTCdeniedtheMotiontoVacateJudgment,considering
that the January 12, 2011 Decision had become final and executory after the Republic's appeal had been denied
duecourse.Thereafter,thecorrespondingWritofExecution41wasissuedonJuly20,2012.

Unperturbed, the Republic filed a Petition for certiorari with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of
PreliminaryInjunction42beforetheCA,docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.127144.

TheCARuling

InaDecision43datedFebruary13,2014,theCAfoundnoreversibleerror,muchless,graveabuseofdiscretionon
thepartoftheRTCingrantingthepetitionforreconstitution,consideringthatSusiwasabletosufficientlyestablish
that the certificate of title sought to be reconstituted was valid and existing under her name at the time it was
destroyed.44

The CA found the principle of res judicata to be inapplicable to this case since the dismissal of the prior similar
petitionwasbasedonSusi'sfailuretocomplywiththetechnicalrequirementsofthelaw.Hence,thelatterwasnot
precluded from filing another petition to prove the necessary allegations for the reconstitution of the subject title,
whichtheRTCcorrectlyfoundtohavebeenfullyestablished.45

TheRepublicfiledamotionforreconsideration,46attachingtherewithacopyofaResolution47issuedbytheLRAen
consulta,stating, among others, that: (a) the subject land is also covered by subsisting titles and occupied by a
numberofpersons48and(b)Susihastwo(2)uncertifiedreproducedowner'sduplicatecopiesofTCTNo.118999,
but bearing different serial numbers49 i.e.,a copy bearing serial number 177563450 which was earlier presented
beforeBranch220,andanotheronewithserialnumber112195551adducedinevidenceaquo.

InaResolution52datedJune25,2014,theCAdeniedthesaidmotionhence,thispetition.

TheIssueBeforetheCourt

TheessentialissuefortheCourt'sresolutioniswhetherornottheCAerredinfindingthattheRTCcommittedno
grave abuse of discretion in: (a) issuing the Order dated July 5, 2012 denying the Republic's Motion to Vacate
JudgmentinLRCCaseNo.Q20493(05)and(b)upholdingtheJanuary12,2011DecisiongrantingSusi'spetition
forreconstitution.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_213209_2017.html 2/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 213209
TheCourt'sRuling

Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.

A.TheRepublicisnotestoppedfromassailingtheproprietyoftheorderofreconstitution.

Attheoutset,itiswelltoemphasizethattheStatecannotbeputinestoppelbythemistakesorerrorsofitsofficials
oragents,absentanyshowingthatithaddealtcapriciouslyordishonorablywithitscitizens.53Thus,whetherornot
theOSG'smotiontovacatewastheproperremedyundertheRulesofCourt(Rules)doesnotbartheRepublicfrom
assailingtheproprietyofthereconstitutionorderedbytheRTCwhichitclaimedtohaveactedwithoutjurisdictionin
hearingand,thereafter,resolvingthecase.Moreover,itbearstoemphasizethatevenassumingthatnoopposition
wasfiledbytheRepublicoraprivateparty,thepersonseekingreconstitutionisnotrelievedofhisburdenofproving
not only the loss or destruction of the title sought to be reconstituted, but that also at that time, she was the
registeredownerthereof.Assuch,theRepublicisnotestoppedfromassailingthedecisiongrantingthepetitionif,
onthebasisofthelawandtheevidenceonrecord,suchpetitionhasnomerit.54

B.Proceduresandrequirementsforreconstitutionoflostordestroyedcertificatesoftitleeffectofnoncompliance.

ThejudicialreconstitutionofaTorrenstitleunderRA26meanstherestorationintheoriginalformandconditionofa
lost or destroyed Torrens certificate attesting the title of a person to registered land. The purpose of the
reconstitution is to enable, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the reproduction of the lost or
destroyed Torrens certificate in the same form and in exactly the same way it was at the time of the loss or
destruction.55

RA26providestwoproceduresandsetsofrequirementsinthereconstitutionoflostordestroyedcertificatesoftitle
depending on the source of the petition for reconstitution. 56 Section 10 in relation to Section 9 provides the
procedureandrequirementsforsourcesfallingunderSections2(a),2(b),3(a),3(b),and4(a).Ontheotherhand,
Sections12and13laydowntheprocedureandrequirementsforsourcesfallingunderSections2(c),2(d),2(e),2
(f), 3 (c), 3 (d), 3 (e), and 3 (f).57 Thus, before the court can properly act, assume, and acquire jurisdiction or
authorityoverthepetitionandgrantthereconstitutionprayedfor,petitionermustobservetheaboveproceduresand
requirementsprescribedbythelaw.58

In numerous cases, the Court has held that the noncompliance with the prescribed procedure and requirements
deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the case and, consequently, all its
proceedingsarerenderednullandvoid.Therationaleunderlyingthisruleconcernsthenatureoftheconfermentin
thetrialcourtoftheauthoritytoundertakereconstitutionproceedings.Inallcaseswheretheauthoritytoproceedis
conferred by a statute and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory, the same must be strictly complied
with, or the proceedings will be utterly void. 59 As such, the court upon which the reconstitution petition is filed is
dutybound to examine thoroughly the same, and review the record and the legal provisions laying down the
germanejurisdictionalrequirements.60

C.Thepetitionforreconstitutionfailedtocomplywiththeapplicableproceduresandrequirementsforreconstitution.

The present reconstitution petition was anchored on a purported owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 118999
(questionedcertificate)whichisasourceforreconstitutionoftitleunderSection3(a)61ofRA26,promptingBranch
77tofollowtheprocedureoutlinedinSections962and1063ofthesaidlaw.

However,recordsshowthatasearlyasJanuary16,2006,theLRA,inaManifestation64datedDecember5,2005,
had already called the court's attention to its Report65 dated March 1, 1995 in the previous reconstitution petition
before Branch 88, expressing serious doubts on the authenticity of Susi's duplicate title, and informing it of the
existenceofothertitlesoverthesubjectland.66

ItiswelltopointoutthattrialcourtshearingreconstitutionpetitionsunderRA26aredutyboundtotakeinto
account the LRA's report.67 Notably, both the RTC and the CA overlooked the fact that while the petition for
reconstitutionbeforeBranch77wasfiledonthebasisofSusi'spurportedowner'sduplicatecopyofTCTNo.118999
bearingSerialNo.1121955,Susi'spriorreconstitutionpetitions,asstatedintheLRA'sReport,wereanchoredon
anowner'sduplicatecertificatebearingadifferentserialnumber,i.e.,SerialNo.1775634.Indeed,aperusalofthe
said certificates68 of title, which were attached to the Republic's motion for reconsideration of the CA's Decision
datedFebruary13,2014,revealsthatsave for the serial number, all the entries therein are the same. The Court
notesthatSusididnotrefutetheexistenceofthesaidcertificatesbearingdifferentserialnumbersinhercomment69
tothesaidmotion.

In cases where the LRA challenges the authenticity of the applicant's purported owner's duplicate
certificateoftitle,thereconstitutionpetitionshouldbetreatedasfallingunderSection3(f)70ofRA26,and
thetrialcourtshouldrequirecompliancewiththerequisitesunderSections1271and1372ofRA26.73

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_213209_2017.html 3/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 213209
In particular, the reconstitution petition and the published and posted notice of hearing in compliance with the
October13,2005Orderfailedtoshowthatnoticesweresenttotheotheroccupants,possessors,andpersonswho
mayhaveaninterestin,orwhohavebuildingsorimprovementsonthelandcoveredbythecertificateoftitlesought
tobereconstituted,aswellastheownersofadjoiningproperties.74

Jurisprudenceisrepletewithcasesunderscoringtheindispensabilityofactualandpersonalnoticeofthedateof
hearingofthereconstitutionpetitiontoactualownersandpossessorsofthelandinvolvedinordertovest
thetrialcourtwithjurisdictionthereon.75Ifnonoticeofthedateofhearingofareconstitutioncaseisservedona
possessor or one having interest in the property involved, he is deprived of his day in court and the order of
reconstitutionisnullandvoid.76

Thus,inlightoftheLRA'sreportofthesubsistenceofothercertificatesoftitleoverthesubjectland,itbehoovedthe
RTCtonotifytheregisteredlandownersofthereconstitutionproceedings,inobservanceofdiligenceandprudence
77
however,itfailedtoactaccordingly.Butmorethanthis,courtshavetheinherentpowertocorrectfatalinfirmities
initsproceedingsinordertomaintaintheintegritythereof.78

InviewofthefailuretocomplywiththerequirementsofSections12and13ofRA26,particularly,ontheserviceof
noticesofhearingontheregisteredownersand/oractualpossessorsofthelandsubjectofthereconstitutioncase,
theRTC,didnotacquirejurisdictionoverthecase,andallproceedingsheldthereonarenullandvoid.Thatbeing
said,theCourtfindsitunnecessarytodelveontheothermattersraisedinthepetition.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheDecisiondatedFebruary13,2014andtheResolutiondatedJune25,
2014oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.127144,upholdingtheOrderdatedJuly5,2012oftheRegional
TrialCourtofQuezonCity,Branch77inLRCCaseNo.Q20493(05)whichdeniedtheMotiontoVacateJudgment
filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines, and sustained the grant of the petition for reconstitution filed by
respondent Gertrudes V. Susi, are hereby SET ASIDE. A new judgment is entered DISMISSING the petition for
reconstitutionforlackofjurisdiction.

SOORDERED.

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ALFREDOBENJAMINS.CAGUIOA
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttotheSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhad
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1
Rollo,pp.1137.
2
Id. at 4249. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas
PeraltaandMyraV.GarciaFernandezconcurring.
3
Id.at8485.
4
Id.atI69170.PennedbyActingPresidingJudgeMa.BelenRingpisLiban.
5
Id.at125128.PennedbyJudgeVivencioS.Baclig.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_213209_2017.html 4/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 213209
6
DatedSeptember12,2005.Id.at107112.
7
Mentionedas"Lot35"inthesaidreconstitutionpetitionid.at108.
8
Seeid.at110.
9
Id.at8081.
10
Records,Vol.1,pp.2425.
11
Id.at25.
12
SeeCertificateofPublicationdatedDecember28,2005oftheNationalPrintingOfficeid.at34.
13
SeeCertificationdatedOctober24,2005issuedbyRTC'sSheriffIV,AngelL.Doroniid.at28.
14
Seerecords,Vol.l,p.29androllo,p.115.
15
Rollo,pp.272273.
16
Id.at274.
17
SeeOrderdatedFebruary2,2006records,Vol.1,p.38.
18
Seerecords,Vol.1,pp.3946androllo,pp.226232.
19
Seerecords,Vol.1,pp.3940androllo,pp.226227.
20
SeeOrderdatedDecember13,2010records,Vol.I,pp.243244.
21
SeeOrderdatedMay14,2008id.at143.
22
SeeNoticeofAppearancedatedMay6,2008id.at147.
23
Rollo,pp.125128.
24
Seeid.at128.
25
Id.at8081.
26
DatedMarch31,1997issuedbyRegisterofDeedsSamuelC.Cleofe.Id.at114.
27
Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS
CERTIFICATESOFTITLELOSTORDESTROYED"(September25,1946).
28
Rollo,pp.127128.
29
DatedJanuary27,2010.Records,Vol.1,pp.352365.
30
DatedJanuary28,2011.Rollo,pp.129130.
31
Id.at140141.IssuedbyActingPresidingJudgeMa.BelenRingpisLiban.
32
DatedAugust15,2011.Records,Vol.2,pp.436437.
33
Rollo,pp.142143.
34
DatedOctober21,2011.Id.at144152.
35
Seeid.at148149.
36
See Motion to Join the OSG in its Motion to Vacate Judgment (dated October 21, 2011) dated March 5,
2012records,Vol.2,pp.519525.
37
DatedMarch24,2011.Seerecords,Vol.2,pp.410418androllo,pp.131139.
38
Seerollo,p.138.
39
Seeid.at133137.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_213209_2017.html 5/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 213209
40
Id.at169170.
41
Records,Vol.2,pp.693695.IssuedbyBranchClerkofCourtVirgilioR.Follosco.
42
DatedOctober22,2012.Rollo,pp.171198.
43
Id.at4249.
44
Id.at47.
45
Seeid.at46.
46
DatedFebruary28,2014.Id.at5067.
47
SignedbyAdministratorEulalioC.DiazIIIonDecember20,2013id.at6875.
48
Id.at74.
49
Id.at7475.
50
Id.at81.
51
Id.at80.
52
Id.at8485.
53
RepublicofthePhils.v.Verzosa,573Phil.503,508(2008).
54
RepublicofthePhils.v.Tuastumban,604Phil.491,509(2009).
55
SeeRepublicofthePhils.v.Mancao,G.R.No.174185,July22,2015,763SCRA475,480emphasis
supplied.
56
RepublicofthePhils.v.Domingo,697Phil.265,271(2012)emphasissupplied.
57
Seeid.
58
SeeSta.LuciaRealtyandDevelopment,Inc.v.Cabrigas,411Phil.369,388(2001).
59
Seeid.at389.SeealsoCastillov.RepublicofthePhils.,667Phil.729,745746(2011)andDordasv.CA,
337Phil.59,6667(1997).
60
HeirsofNavarrov.Go,577Phil.523,532(2008).
61
Section. 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder
enumeratedasmaybeavailable,inthefollowingorder:

(a)Theowner'sduplicateofthecertificateoftitle[.]
62
Section 9. A registered owner desiring to have his reconstituted certificate of title freed from the
encumbrancementionedinsectionsevenofthisAct,mayfileapetitiontothatendwiththeproperCourtof
FirstInstance,givinghisreasonorreasonstherefor.Asimilarpetitionmay,likewise,befiledbyamortgagee,
lesseesorotherlienholderwhoseinterestisannotatedinthereconstitutedcertificateoftitle.Thereupon,the
courtshallcauseanoticeofthepetitiontobepublished,attheexpenseofthepetitioner,twiceinsuccessive
issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the
municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land lies, at least thirty days prior to the date of
hearing,andafterhearing,shalldeterminethepetitionandrendersuchjudgmentasjusticeandequitymay
require. The notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title, the name of the
registered owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, the
locationoftheproperty,andthedateonwhichallpersonshavinganinterestinthepropertymustappearand
file such claim as they may have. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication and
posting of the notice: Provided, however, That after the expiration of two years from the date of the
reconstitution of a certificate of title, if no petition has been filed within that period under the preceding
section,thecourtshall,onmotionexpartebytheregisteredownerorotherpersonhavingregisteredinterest
in the reconstituted certificate of title, order the register of deeds to cancel, proper annotation, the
encumbrancementionedinsectionsevenhereof.
63
Section 10. Nothing hereinbefore provided shall prevent any registered owner or person in interest from
filingthepetitionmentionedinsectionfiveofthisActdirectlywiththeproperCourtofFirstInstance,basedon
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_213209_2017.html 6/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 213209
sources enumerated in sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and/or 4(a) of this Act: Provided, however, That the
courtshallcauseanoticeofthepetition,beforehearingandgrantingthesame,tobepublishedinthemanner
stated in section nine hereof: And provided, further, That certificates of title reconstituted pursuant to this
sectionshallnotbesubjecttotheencumbrancereferredtoinsectionsevenofthisAct.
64
Seerecords,Vol.1,p.29androllo,p.115.
65
The said report was submitted in the earlier reconstitution petition filed by Susi before Branch 88 of the
sameRTC.Seerollo,pp.72273.
66
The said report stated, inter alia, that: (a) the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 118999 bearing Serial No.
1775634isofdoubtfulauthenticityasitcouldnothavebeenissuedbytheRDQConJune16,1967because
the judicial form bearing the said serial number was issued by the LRA to the RDSan Carlos, Negros
OccidentalonlyonOctober13,1970and(b)thesubjectland,i.e.,"Lot25,Psu32606,whenplottedinMIS
2754appearstohavebeenoriginallysubdividedintoparcelsAtoLwhereTCTNos.40476and49480were
among the titles issued. It also appears that sublots 25A to 25L were subsequently subjected to several
subdivisionsand/orconsolidations,oneofwhichisPcs13000571,assurveyedforFilinvestLandInc.(now
Filinvest Dev. Corp.) being a consolidation and subdivision of the parcels covered by TCT Nos. 304657,
304785,305195,305203,385220,and306097coveringatotalareaof187,523squaremeters."(Seeid.at
272.)
67
SeeRepublicofthePhils.v.Sps.Sanchez,527Phil.571,592(2006).
68
Rollo,pp.8081andrecords,Vol.2,pp.894895.
69
SeeCommentsonthePetitioner'sMotionforReconsideration(DatedFebruary28,2014)datedApril1,
2014records,Vol.2,pp.898901.
70
Section. 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder
enumeratedasmaybeavailable,inthefollowingorder:

xxxx

(f)Anyotherdocumentwhich,inthejudgmentofthecourt,issufficientandproperbasisfor
reconstitutingthelostordestroyedcertificateoftitle.
71
Section12.PetitionsforreconstitutionfromsourcesenumeratedinSections2(c),2(d),2(e),2(f),3(c),3(d),
3(e),and/or3(t)ofthisAct,shallbefiledwiththeproperCourtofFirstInstance,bytheregisteredowner,his
assigns, or any person having an interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain, among other
things,thefollowing:(a)thattheownersduplicateofthecertificateoftitlehadbeenlostordestroyed(b)that
nocoowner's,mortgagee'sorlessee'sduplicatehadbeenissued,or,ifanyhadbeenissued,thesamehad
beenlostordestroyed(c)thelocation,area,andboundariesoftheproperty(d)thenatureanddescription
ofthebuildingsorimprovements,ifany,whichdonotbelongtotheowneroftheland,andthenames
andaddressesoftheownersofsuchbuildingsorimprovements(e)thenamesandaddressesofthe
occupantsorpersonsinpossessionoftheproperty,oftheownersoftheadjoiningpropertiesandof
allpersonswhomayhaveinterestintheproperty(f)adetaileddescriptionoftheencumbrances,ifany,
affecting the property and (g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting the property
have been presented for registration, or, if there be any, the registration thereof has not been
accomplished,asyet. All the documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in
supportofthepetitionforreconstitutionshallbeattachedtheretoandfiledwiththesame:Provided,Thatin
casethereconstitutionistobemadeexclusivelyfromsourcesenumeratedinSection2(t)or3(t)ofthisAct,
thepetitionshallbefurtheraccompaniedwithaplanandtechnicaldescriptionofthepropertydulyapproved
by the Chief of the General Land Registration, or with a certified copy of the description taken from a prior
certificateoftitlecoveringthesameproperty.(Emphasessupplied)
72
Section13.Thecourtshallcauseanoticeofthepetition,filedundertheprecedingsection,tobepublished,
attheexpenseofthepetitioner,twiceinsuccessiveissuesoftheOfficialGazette,andtobepostedonthe
mainentranceoftheprovincialbuildingandofthemunicipalbuildingofthemunicipalityorcityinwhichthe
landissituated,atleastthirtydayspriortothedateofhearing.Thecourtshalllikewisecauseacopyofthe
notice to be sent, by registered mail or otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named
therein whose address is known, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Said notice shall state,
among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, if known, the name of the
registered owner, the names of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owners of the
adjoining properties andallotherinterestedparties,thelocation,area,andboundaries of the property, and
thedateonwhichallpersonshavinganyinterestthereinmustappearandfiletheirclaimorobjectionstothe
petition.Thepetitionershall,atthehearing,submitproofofthepublication,postingandserviceofthenotice
asdirectedbythecourt.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_213209_2017.html 7/8
9/26/2017 G.R. No. 213209
73
SeeRepublicofthePhils.v.Sps.Sanchez,supranote67at591.
74
TheCourtnotesthatwhiletheRTCissuedanOrderdatedOctober7,2005requiringSusito:(a)amend
her petition to state the necessary information and (b) submit a technical description of the subject land
pendingtheissuanceoftheNoticeofHearing(records,Vol.1,p.19),itsubsequentlysetasidethesaidorder
upon a finding that the petition falls under Sections 9 and 10 of RA 26 (see id. at 23) in view of Susi's
representationthatthepetitionisanchoredonherowner'sduplicateoriginalofTCTNo.118999.
75
SeeOpriasav.TheCityGovernmentofQuezonCity,540Phil.256,265266(2006)RepublicofthePhils.
v.CA,368Phil.412,424(1999)andRepublicofthePhils.v.Marasigan,275Phil.243,253(1991).
76
SeeManilaRailroadCo.v.Moya,121Phil.1122,1128(1965).
77
SeeRepublicofthePhils.v.DeAsis,Jr.,715Phil.245,258(2013)..
78
SeeRepublicofthePhils.v.Sps.Sanchez,supranote67at593.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_213209_2017.html 8/8