Republic v. Ciruelas
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a petition filed by Dominador B. Ciruelas, as attorney-in-fact for his brother Rogelio B. Ciruelas, seeking the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-62328. The petition also sought to correct the registered owner's surname from "Ceruelas" to "Ciruelas." Rogelio executed an Affidavit of Loss stating that his owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328, covering a parcel of land in Batangas, could not be located and was deemed lost. The Register of Deeds of Batangas Province certified that a copy of the title was intact in their files, and the Affidavit of Loss was annotated on the title. 2. Procedural History: The petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas. As there was no opposition, Dominador presented evidence ex parte. The RTC granted the petition, ordering the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy and the correction of the surname. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought reconsideration, which was denied. The RTC then issued an Amended Decision to explicitly include the correction of the surname in its dispositive portion. The OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's Amended Decision, holding that the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) did not need to be registered for validity, sufficient evidence supported the reconstitution, and allowing the surname correction in the same proceeding would avoid multiplicity of suits. The OSG sought reconsideration, which the CA denied. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner argues that Dominador lacked the authority to file the action and sign the verification and certification against forum shopping because the SPA was not registered with the Register of Deeds as mandated by law. Furthermore, the OSG contends that the evidence presented to prove the loss of the owner's duplicate copy was hearsay, and Dominador lacked personal knowledge of the loss. Finally, the OSG asserts that correcting the surname in the same proceeding for re-issuance of a lost title contravened Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529.
Issue(s)
Whether Dominador, as attorney-in-fact, had the authority to file a petition for new owner's duplicate on behalf of Rogelio and execute the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping. Whether the fact of loss of the owner's duplicate of TCT No. T-62328 was established by sufficient evidence. Whether a certificate of title may be altered through a proceeding other than Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of Dominador as attorney-in-fact: The Court held that Dominador had the requisite authority to file the petition under Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529 and to execute the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping. The SPA created a contract of agency, and the agent acts on behalf of the principal. The non-registration of the SPA with the Register of Deeds was not a prerequisite for its validity, as the purpose of registration is to notify third parties, which was accomplished through publication and hearing. Furthermore, the SPA's broad authority included signing and executing documents, which encompasses the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping, consistent with jurisprudence allowing agents to execute such certifications when they initiate suits on behalf of the principal. On the sufficiency of evidence to prove the fact of loss: The Court found that the fact of loss of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-62328 was not sufficiently proven by preponderant evidence. While Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529 requires notice of loss and a subsequent petition with due hearing, the second paragraph contemplates a full-blown hearing where the fact of loss must be proven. The evidence presented, namely Rogelio's Affidavit of Loss and Dominador's testimony, constituted hearsay evidence. Affidavits are generally hearsay unless the affiants testify and are cross-examined. Dominador's testimony, even if he claimed personal knowledge, was not supported by record and was insufficient to establish the fact of loss, as bare allegations are not evidence. The Court noted that Dominador's claim of personal knowledge was contradicted by records showing he was married and no indication that he lived with Rogelio. On the propriety of joining actions for reconstitution and amendment: The Court acknowledged the CA's reasoning that for equity and to avoid multiplicity of suits, joining the action for replacement of a lost duplicate title with the action to correct a surname under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 was permissible. However, since the Court determined that the fact of loss was not established, the issue of the propriety of joining these two actions was rendered moot.
Main Doctrine
The fact of loss of an owner's duplicate certificate of title must be proven by preponderant evidence, and mere compliance with the notice requirement and filing of a petition does not automatically entitle the registered owner to a replacement duplicate certificate. Hearsay evidence, such as an affidavit of loss not testified upon by the affiant and testimony without personal knowledge, is insufficient to establish the fact of loss.