Republic v. Fule
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Juan Fule and Delia O. Fule filed a petition for the reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. T-1929(464) covering Lot 1204 of the Cadastral Survey of Lucena. They claimed that the original title, issued in the name of Isabel Zarsadias based on Decree No. 130359 dated December 5, 1922, was among those destroyed in a fire that razed the Lucena City Hall building on August 30, 1983. The respondents asserted that they are the successors-in-interest of Isabel Zarsadias, having acquired the property through an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale. They further stated that the property has been declared for taxation purposes in Isabel Zarsadias' name and has been in the possession of her heirs. The owner's duplicate copy of the title was allegedly lost by Antonio Zarsadias Pabillorin, the son of Isabel, and subsequently declared lost by his daughter, Dorotea Pabillorin. Procedural History: The respondents filed their Petition for Reconstitution before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, Branch 57. The RTC, after considering the evidence presented by the respondents and a report from the Land Registration Authority (LRA), granted the petition in an Order dated February 11, 2015, directing the Register of Deeds of Lucena City to reconstitute the title. The petitioner, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated September 22, 2017, affirmed the RTC's order, finding that the respondents had sufficiently proven the existence and loss of OCT No. T-1929(464). The CA subsequently denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 8, 2018. The Petition: The petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution. The petitioner argues that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's order because the respondents failed to sufficiently prove the prior existence and subsequent loss or destruction of OCT No. T-1929(464). Specifically, the petitioner contends that an authenticated copy of Decree No. 130359 alone is insufficient to establish the existence of the title, and the certification from the Register of Deeds merely presumes loss without confirming the title's prior existence in its records. The petitioner also argues that tax declarations are not reliable evidence for reconstitution proceedings. The respondents, in turn, moved for the dismissal of the petition on procedural grounds, arguing that it raises questions of fact and that material portions of the record were not attached. They also maintain that the CA did not err in its findings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's order granting the petition for reconstitution despite the respondents' alleged failure to prove the prior existence and issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. T-1929(464). Whether the evidence presented by the respondents, including the LRA Report, Register of Deeds' Certification, and Tax Declarations, was sufficient to establish that Original Certificate of Title No. T-1929(464) actually existed and was subsequently lost or destroyed, as required for a petition for reconstitution.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Decision dated 22 September 2017 and Resolution dated 8 May 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 105351 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Petition for Reconstitution filed by spouses Juan Fule and Delia Fule before the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branch 57, docketed as Misc. Case No. 2012-105, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence to prove the prior existence and issuance of OCT No. T-1929(464): The Court held that a petition for reconstitution requires, as a condition precedent, proof that an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) has indeed been issued. The respondents based their petition on Section 2(d) of Republic Act (RA) No. 26, an authenticated copy of the decree of registration. They presented an LRA certified microfilm copy of Decree No. 130359, which ordered the registration of Lot 1204 in the name of Isabel Zarsadias. However, the Court found that the decree merely ordered registration and did not confirm that OCT No. T-1929(464) was subsequently issued pursuant to it. The Court emphasized that there must be an act of registration to follow the decree to bring the lot under the Torrens System and result in the issuance of a certificate of title. The respondents failed to submit supporting evidence to prove that the lot was subsequently registered and covered by an OCT in Isabel Zarsadias' name in compliance with the decree. On the probative value of the LRA Report, the Register of Deeds' Certification, and the reliance on Tax Declarations: The Court found that the LRA Report only admitted the existence of Decree No. 130359 and did not indicate that an OCT was subsequently issued, nor did it mention the number or date of issuance of such title. Citing Republic v. Heirs of Ramos, the Court reiterated that the absence of any document mentioning the number and date of issuance of a certificate of title does not warrant granting a reconstitution petition. Similarly, the Certification from the Register of Deeds of Lucena City, stating that OCT No. T-1929(464) was presumed burned, was deemed insufficient. The Court clarified that such a certification does not confirm that the OCT actually existed and formed part of the registry's records, but merely presumes its loss due to fire. Unlike in Republic v. Dela Raga, where other evidence like a pre-war inventory corroborated the certification, no such corroborating evidence was presented here to establish the OCT's existence. The Court reiterated its ruling in Republic of the Philippines v. Santua that a tax declaration is only prima facie evidence of a claim of ownership, which is not the issue in a reconstitution proceeding. A reconstitution proceeding does not pass upon ownership but merely determines the propriety of re-issuing a lost or destroyed title. Therefore, the tax declaration presented by the respondents was not a reliable source to prove the existence of OCT No. T-1929(464).
Main Doctrine
A petition for reconstitution of a lost or destroyed Original Certificate of Title requires, as a condition precedent, proof of the prior existence and issuance of such title. Mere presentation of a decree of registration or a certification from the Register of Deeds presuming loss due to fire is insufficient without further evidence establishing the actual existence of the title in the registry's records.