Republic v. Perez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Esmeralda S. Perez (respondent) is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-86087 (319891) in Brgy. Commonwealth, Capitol District, Quezon City. Her owner's duplicate copy of the title was lost, leading to the issuance of a reconstituted title, TCT No. 004-RT-86087 (319891). Both the original and reconstituted titles bear a legal encumbrance annotated pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26, which states that the certificate of title is "without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the project xxxxx noted on the original at the time it was lost or destroyed." 2. Procedural History: Respondent filed a Petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City on May 19, 2022, seeking the cancellation of this legal encumbrance. The RTC, finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, set the case for hearing. On September 9, 2022, the RTC granted the petition, directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel the encumbrance, reasoning that all requirements of Republic Act No. 26 were satisfied and the two-year period had lapsed without any petition filed under Section 8. The Republic of the Philippines (the Republic), represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to respondent's failure to comply with publication and posting requirements. The RTC denied the OSG's motion on October 28, 2022, holding that an ex parte motion is sufficient for cancellation after the two-year lien has expired, especially since a certification from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) confirmed the lien had lapsed. 3. The Petition: Unsatisfied with the RTC's ruling, the OSG filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari directly before the Supreme Court. The OSG raised the sole legal issue of whether the requirements of publication and posting under Republic Act No. 26 may be dispensed with after the lapse of two years from the date of the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title. The OSG contended that the proviso in Section 9 only allows an ex parte hearing if no Section 8 petition was filed, but does not waive the jurisdictional requirements of publication and posting. Respondent, in her Comment, maintained that the RTC correctly granted her petition, asserting that Section 9 only requires an ex parte motion after the two-year period and that she had complied with all jurisdictional requirements ordered by the RTC.
Issue(s)
Whether the requirements of publication and posting under Republic Act No. 26 may be dispensed with after the lapse of two years from the date of the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines is DENIED. The Decision dated September 9, 2022, and the Order dated October 28, 2022, of Branch 91, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City in LRC Case No. R-QZN-22-05206-LR are hereby AFFIRMED. The Register of Deeds of Quezon City is directed to notify Branch 91, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City and the Court of the cancellation of the encumbrance on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 004-RT-86087 (319891).
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the requirements of publication and posting under Republic Act No. 26 may indeed be dispensed with after the lapse of two years from the date of the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, provided certain conditions are met. The Court noted that this legal issue has already been settled in the recent case of Republic v. Bella (G.R. No. 260831, February 26, 2025). Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26 mandates an annotation of encumbrance on reconstituted titles to protect rights not carried over from the original. Section 9 outlines the general procedure for cancelling this encumbrance, which typically requires publication twice in the Official Gazette and posting for at least 30 days prior to a hearing. However, the proviso in Section 9 explicitly states that after the expiration of two years from the date of reconstitution, if no petition has been filed under Section 8 within that period, the court shall, on motion ex parte by the registered owner, order the cancellation of the encumbrance. Section 8 allows persons with prior noted rights to petition for annotation while the reservation subsists. The Court clarified that the ex parte motion is permissible when two conditions are met: first, two years must have lapsed from the date of reconstitution, and second, no petition under Section 8 was filed within that two-year period. In the present case, it was undisputed that respondent filed her Petition for cancellation more than two years after the reconstitution of the subject title. A Certification from the Land Registration Authority dated April 4, 2022, confirmed that the two-year reservation period had expired on September 13, 2001, "without anybody laying claim or interest thereon." Therefore, consistent with Republic v. Bella, notice to any adverse party was no longer required, and respondent's Petition, even without publication and posting, was sufficient for the cancellation of the legal encumbrance under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26.
Main Doctrine
The primary legal doctrine established and applied in this case clarifies the conditions under which the mandatory legal encumbrance annotated on a reconstituted certificate of title, pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26, may be cancelled. The Court reiterates that while a general rule requires publication and posting for such cancellation, an exception exists: if two years have lapsed from the date of reconstitution and no petition under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 26 has been filed within that period, the encumbrance may be cancelled through a mere ex parte motion by the registered owner, thereby dispensing with the publication and posting requirements. This doctrine ensures the finality of reconstituted titles after a reasonable period, balancing the protection of prior interests with the need for stability in land titles.