Republic v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Angel Casimiro M. Tinio inherited a 8,993-square meter parcel of land in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 17472, registered in the names of spouses Feliciano and Trinidad Ramoso. Tinio subsequently sold this property to respondents Angel and Benjamin T. Domingo via a deed of sale dated February 22, 1978. Upon purchase, the Domingos received the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 17472. Their subsequent inquiry at the Register of Deeds revealed that the original copy of the title was lost or destroyed. Procedural History: Following the discovery of the lost original title, the Domingos filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, on August 18, 2006, seeking the reconstitution of OCT No. 17472, pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 26. The RTC, finding sufficient basis, ordered the reconstitution. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed this order to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing non-compliance with Sections 12 and 13 of RA No. 26 due to failure to notify certain heirs. The CA dismissed the appeal, affirming the RTC's order and holding that the applicable provisions were Section 10, not Sections 12 and 13, as the reconstitution was based on the owner's duplicate copy. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the CA's decision. The core issue raised is whether the Domingos complied with the procedural requirements for the reconstitution of the lost OCT No. 17472. The petitioner reiterates its argument that the Domingos failed to notify the heirs of the Spouses Ramoso and a certain Senen J. Gabaldon, asserting that Sections 12 and 13 of RA No. 26 should have been applied. The petition seeks to reverse the CA's affirmation of the RTC's order for reconstitution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC's order for the reconstitution of OCT No. 17472 despite the alleged non-compliance with Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26, considering the applicable procedure for reconstitution under RA No. 26. Whether the procedure followed by the Domingos in filing the petition for reconstitution complied with the requirements of Republic Act No. 26, specifically regarding Section 10 in relation to Section 9, and the inapplicability of Sections 12 and 13.
Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious. The Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Court of Appeals erred: The Court reiterated that Republic Act No. 26 provides two sets of procedures and requirements for the reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title, depending on the source of the petition. Petitions based on sources enumerated in Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and 4(a) fall under one group and are governed by Section 10 in relation to Section 9 of RA No. 26. Conversely, petitions based on sources enumerated in Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 3(f) belong to another group and are governed by Sections 12 and 13 of the same law. In the present case, the source of the petition for reconstitution was the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 17472, which falls under Section 2(a) of RA No. 26. Therefore, the procedure and requirements under Section 10 in relation to Section 9 were the applicable ones, not Sections 12 and 13. On whether the procedure followed by the Domingos complied with RA No. 26: The Court clarified that Section 10 mandates that the court shall cause a notice of the petition to be published in the manner stated in Section 9 before hearing and granting the same. Section 9 specifies that the notice shall include, 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 location of the property, and the date on which all persons having an interest in the property must appear and file their claims. The records showed that the notice published by the RTC contained all these required particulars. Thus, the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for reconstitution. The Court emphasized that the requirements under Sections 12 and 13 of RA No. 26 are specifically for petitions for reconstitution based on sources enumerated in Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 3(f). Since the petition in this case was based on the owner's duplicate copy, the procedural requirements of Sections 12 and 13 were not applicable. The OSG's argument that the Domingos failed to notify the heirs of the Spouses Ramoso and Gabaldon was therefore misplaced, as these parties' names did not appear in the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 17472, the source of the reconstitution.
Main Doctrine
The procedure and requirements for the judicial reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate of title under Republic Act No. 26 depend on the source of the petition. If the source is the owner's duplicate copy of the title, the procedure under Section 10 in relation to Section 9 of RA No. 26 applies, which requires publication and posting of notice, and specifies the content of the notice to include interested parties appearing in the title. Sections 12 and 13, which require notification of adjoining lot owners and other parties not appearing in the title, are not applicable in such cases.