Republic v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-304198, which was destroyed when the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan was gutted by fire on March 7, 1987. Private respondents, Spouses Fernando Dayao and Remedios Nicodemus, filed a petition for the reconstitution of this title. 2. Procedural History: The private respondents filed their petition for reconstitution with the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 16, on March 16, 1989. The trial court issued an order setting the hearing for September 13, 1989, and mandating publication of the notice in the Official Gazette and posting in public places. The trial court, on October 9, 1989, granted the petition for reconstitution. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals on February 28, 1991, and a motion for reconsideration was denied on August 29, 1991. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, as petitioner, seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the lower courts gravely disregarded the inadequate evidence submitted by the private respondents and the explicit provisions of L.R.C. Circular No. 35. Specifically, the petitioner contends that a mere certification of publication from the National Printing Office is insufficient proof of publication, asserting that the actual copies of the Official Gazette should have been presented as the best evidence. The petitioner also argues that the private respondents failed to comply with the requirement of obtaining reports from the Land Registration Commission Administrator and the Register of Deeds.
Issue(s)
Whether the certification of publication from the Director of the National Printing Office is sufficient proof of publication for the reconstitution of a Torrens title. Whether the presentation of actual copies of the Official Gazette is required under the Best Evidence Rule. Whether the private respondents complied with LRC Circular No. 35, Series of 1983.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals' Decision, dated February 28, 1991, and its Resolution, dated August 29, 1991, are affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the certification of publication: The Court held that the certification of publication issued by the Director of the National Printing Office is sufficient proof of publication for the reconstitution of a Torrens title. This is because official acts of public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity, and this presumption was not overcome in this case. On the Best Evidence Rule: The Court clarified that the Best Evidence Rule is not erroneously relied upon by the petitioner, as what must be proved under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26 is not the content of the Order published in the Official Gazette, but the fact of two-time publication in successive issues thereof at least thirty days before the hearing date. The certification from the National Printing Office, a government official, establishes both the fact of publication and that it occurred within the statutory period. The Court noted that it has consistently accepted the probative value of such certifications in similar reconstitution cases. Therefore, the submission of actual copies of the Official Gazette is not a mandatory requirement to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of publication. On compliance with LRC Circular No. 35, Series of 1983: The Court disagreed with the petitioner's contention that the private respondents failed to comply with LRC Circular No. 35, Series of 1983. While the circular mandates the Land Registration Commission Administrator and the Register of Deeds to submit reports and recommendations, it does not impose a concomitant obligation on the petitioner to show compliance by these officials. The Court found it illogical to require such a showing from the petitioner, especially in light of Section 15 of R.A. No. 26, which allows the court to issue an order of reconstitution if the documents presented, supported by parole evidence or otherwise, are sufficient and proper, and the petitioner meets the other requirements. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's obligation is to present sufficient evidence for reconstitution, not to ensure the submission of reports by other government agencies.
Main Doctrine
A certification of publication issued by the Director of the National Printing Office is sufficient proof of publication for the reconstitution of Torrens titles, as it enjoys the presumption of regularity, and the Best Evidence Rule does not require the presentation of the actual Official Gazette issues when the fact of publication is the issue.