Alipoon v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Fausto Alipoon and Silveria Duria were declared owners in fee simple of Lot No. 663 on December 18, 1930, pursuant to Cadastral Decree of Registration No. 414946. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 28203 was issued in their names on January 30, 1931. This OCT was subsequently cancelled, and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-17224 was issued on March 16, 1933, in the name of Marcelina Alvarez, married to Agripino Alvarez, and mother of respondents. Respondents have been in continuous, open, and adverse possession of Lot No. 663 since 1933. Procedural History: On May 16, 1989, a petition for reconstitution of title was filed by Manuel Concha on behalf of respondents. They were informed that a reconstituted title, OCT No. RO-12890 (N.A.), had already been issued in the names of petitioners Alipoon, et al. Respondents filed Civil Case No. 409 for annulment of OCT No. RO-12890 (N.A.) and damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, declaring petitioners as the true owners and TCT No. T-17224 void due to alleged defects. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, declared OCT No. RO-12890 (N.A.) void, and affirmed respondents' ownership based on TCT No. T-17224. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the CA decision, alleging misapprehension of facts by the CA in declaring that OCT No. RO-12890 (N.A.) was not issued in their favor, contrary to the RTC's findings, and in not applying the law that acquisitive prescription is unavailing against the conclusive and indefeasible character of an original certificate of title.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in misapprehending the facts by declaring that OCT No. RO-12890 (N.A.) was not issued in favor of the petitioners. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the law that acquisitive prescription is unavailing against the conclusive and indefeasible character of an original certificate of title.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The reconstituted OCT No. RO-12890 (N.A.) issued in 1989 in the names of petitioners is declared void. Respondents are declared the rightful owners of Lot No. 663, evidenced by TCT No. T-17224.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misapprehending facts regarding OCT No. RO-12890 (N.A.): The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that TCT No. T-17224, issued on March 16, 1933, in the name of Marcelina Alvarez, is genuine and valid. The Court found that the certification on TCT No. T-17224 clearly indicated that OCT No. 28203 was issued on January 30, 1931, pursuant to Decree No. 414946, and was subsequently cancelled in lieu of TCT No. T-17224. This established the existence of respondents' title long before the reconstituted title was issued. The Court also noted that the Register of Deeds' certification dated June 18, 1988, stating no existing title in its files for Lot No. 663, did not mean a title was never issued, but rather that the office did not have a copy in its possession, likely due to destruction during World War II. Therefore, the issuance of a reconstituted title in 1989 over Lot No. 663 in the names of petitioners' parents was legally doubtful and rendered void. On the issue of acquisitive prescription and the indefeasible character of an original certificate of title: The Supreme Court held that the reconstitution of a Torrens certificate of title under Republic Act No. 26 is limited to the restoration of lost or destroyed instruments in their original form and condition. It is not a means to acquire title or to re-establish a title that was never lost or destroyed. In this case, TCT No. T-17224 had been in existence since March 16, 1933, and was not lost or destroyed. Consequently, there was no necessity for the issuance of a reconstituted original certificate of title over the same lot. The Court reiterated the principle that if a certificate of title has not been lost but is in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void, and the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction. The RTC erred in declaring OCT No. RO-12890 (N.A.) as the original title issued pursuant to Decree No. 414946 and in concluding that TCT No. T-17224 was not authentic. The CA correctly found that the issuance of the reconstituted title violated R.A. No. 26, rendering it void.
Main Doctrine
A reconstituted title is void if the original title was not lost or destroyed but was in fact in existence and possession of another party. The reconstitution of a Torrens certificate of title under Republic Act No. 26 is limited to the restoration of lost or destroyed instruments in their original form and condition; it cannot be used to acquire title or to re-establish a title that was never lost or destroyed.