Lozano v. Register of Deeds
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a petition for the reconstitution of the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 17100, covering Lot No. 196 of the Cadastral Survey of Villasis, Pangasinan. The original owner of the property was the spouses Marciano Racadio and Emiliana Galima, who were survived by their daughter, Pastora Lozano, as sole heir. Pastora Lozano entrusted the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 17100 to German R. Lozano. The property was declared for taxation purposes in 1998 under the name of Marciano Racadio, and realty taxes were paid for 1998-1999. Procedural History: Pastora R. Lozano filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Villasis, Pangasinan, for the reconstitution of TCT No. 17100. The RTC initially set a hearing, but it was cancelled due to improper publication. A subsequent order for hearing was issued, and after Pastora Lozano's death, her heirs were substituted as petitioners. The RTC issued an Order of General Default, finding that jurisdictional requirements were met. Despite issues with proving the posting of notices and the authenticity of the owner's duplicate copy, the RTC granted the petition on January 26, 2000, directing the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the title. The Republic of the Philippines appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Heirs of Pastora Lozano filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. They assail the CA's decision, which annulled the RTC's order for reconstitution. The petitioners contend that the RTC did not err in ordering the reconstitution based on the owner's duplicate copy, even if it was unsigned. They argue that the lack of the Register of Deeds' signature is a mere irregularity and does not render the owner's duplicate void, and that the validity of a Torrens title can only be raised in an action specifically brought to impugn it. The petitioners also argue that the CA erred in finding the owner's duplicate spurious and in reversing the RTC's decision, asserting that they are not at fault for any defects in the document.
Issue(s)
Whether the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 17100, which does not bear the signature of the Register of Deeds and has a handwritten title number, is a competent source for the reconstitution of the original copy of the title. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution, considering the failure to comply with the posting requirements under Republic Act No. 26 regarding the January 11, 1999 Order.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the competency of the owner's duplicate copy as a source for reconstitution: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 17100, lacking the signature of the Register of Deeds and having a handwritten title number, is not a competent source for reconstitution. The Court emphasized that any title issued by the Register of Deeds, whether the original or the owner's duplicate, must bear the signature of the Register of Deeds to be considered authentic. The presented owner's duplicate was deemed spurious and of dubious origin because it did not bear the required signature, and the petitioners failed to provide any explanation for this defect. The Court reiterated that while public documents are generally admissible without further proof of execution, this rule does not apply when the document, on its face, lacks the required authentication, such as the official signature and seal it is supposed to bear. The Court noted that the handwritten title number further contributed to the suspicion surrounding the document's authenticity. On the jurisdiction of the trial court: The Supreme Court found that the petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory posting requirements under Republic Act No. 26, specifically concerning the January 11, 1999 Order. The Sheriff's Return indicated that the posting was done in August 1998, pertaining to the August 12, 1998 Order, but not the subsequent January 11, 1999 Order which reset the hearing. This failure to post the order setting the hearing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution. The Court stressed that the requirements under Rep. Act No. 26 are indispensable and must be strictly complied with, as interpreted in a catena of cases, to safeguard against spurious land claims. The Court cited Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals for the principle that these requirements must be applied vigorously with exactness and precision.
Main Doctrine
An owner's duplicate copy of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) that does not bear the signature of the Register of Deeds is not a competent source for the reconstitution of the original copy of the title, as it is considered spurious and of dubious origin. Furthermore, failure to strictly comply with the posting and publication requirements under Republic Act No. 26 deprives the court of jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution.