Republic v. Masongsong
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Jose Lubis Masongsong and Juanito Lubis Masongsong initiated proceedings to nullify Decree No. 639024, purportedly issued in favor of Serapio Lubis on June 21, 1937, for a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 8500 in Mataasnakahoy, Batangas. They alleged that Serapio Lubis was the original owner, and after his death, his heirs agreed to adjudicate the property amongst themselves. The petitioners claimed that diligent searches revealed no existing or salvaged records of Decree No. 639024, leading them to believe it was lost or destroyed during World War II. They executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement and presented tax declarations for the property under Serapio Lubis's name. 2. Procedural History: The Masongsong brothers filed their petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City, which granted the petition, ordering the cancellation of the lost decree and the issuance of a new one. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC erred in granting the petition without a copy of the decree or the underlying decision, and without proper notification to adjoining lot owners. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision. The Republic, through the OSG, then filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petition argues that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the respondents adequately explained the failure to produce the decree or the relevant decision, and in giving weight to government agency certifications regarding the presumed loss of the decree. Furthermore, the Republic contends that the CA erred in ruling that adjoining lot owners and co-owners did not need to be notified of the proceedings, asserting that the respondents failed to prove the existence of the decree and the underlying court decision, and that secondary evidence was insufficient without proper proof of the original's unavailability.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents adduced sufficient evidence to prove the existence and loss of Decree No. 639024. Whether the respondents complied with the requirements for the issuance of a new decree in lieu of a lost or destroyed one. Whether the adjoining lot owners and co-owners were required to be notified of the proceedings.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition of the respondents in the court a quo is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proving the existence and loss of Decree No. 639024: The respondents, as petitioners in the RTC, bore the burden of proving the existence of the court's decision in LRC Case No. 24, LRC Cad. Record No. 1296, and the subsequent issuance of Decree No. 639024 in favor of Serapio Lubis. While secondary evidence is admissible when the original document is lost or destroyed without bad faith, the respondents failed to adduce preponderant evidence to prove the existence of Decree No. 639024. The certifications from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and the Register of Deeds stating that the decree was not found or was presumed lost due to World War II were insufficient without proof of a diligent search and a reasonable probability of loss. The respondents did not present a certified copy of the decision granting the decree, nor did they prove that the court records or the copy transmitted to the LRA were missing, lost, or destroyed. The fact that the property was declared for taxation purposes only in 1968, long after Serapio's death in 1940, and that Jose Masongsong only took possession in 1970, further weakened their claim of continuous ownership and possession since 1937. On the compliance with requirements for issuing a new decree: The Court reiterated that Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 applies only to the loss or theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, not to the loss or destruction of a decree based on a land registration court's decision. Therefore, the procedure outlined in Section 109 was not applicable to the respondents' petition. The respondents failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which mandates proof of the document's execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith. The respondents did not present sufficient evidence to establish these elements, relying instead on mere certifications that did not demonstrate a thorough search or a high degree of certainty regarding the loss or destruction of the decree. On the notification of adjoining lot owners and co-owners: The Court did not directly rule on the necessity of notifying adjoining lot owners and co-owners, as the primary issue revolved around the failure to prove the existence and loss of the decree. However, the OSG's argument regarding the lack of notification was raised as an error by the CA. The CA's affirmation of the RTC decision implicitly suggests that the procedural requirements, including notification, were deemed sufficient by the lower courts, but this was overshadowed by the substantive failure to prove the existence and loss of the decree.
Main Doctrine
The failure to present the original decree or a certified copy thereof, or even a certified copy of the decision granting the decree, is fatal to a petition for the issuance of a new decree, unless the loss or destruction of such documents is proven by preponderant evidence, and the cause of unavailability is without bad faith on the part of the offeror. Mere certifications from government agencies that records are not found or are presumed lost due to war are insufficient without further proof of diligent search and reasonable probability of loss.