Republic vs.
Tuastumban
G.R. 173210, April 24, 2009
TOPIC: Reconstitution of title, Judicial Reconstitution, Judicial Reconstitution Procedure, Friar
Land Act (Act No. 1120)
DOCTRINE: Reconstitution of titles- The governing law for judicial reconstitution for judicial
reconstitution of titles is R.A. No. 26; “Any other document” in Section 2(f) and 3(f) of R.A. No.
26 Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. 26 refers to documents similar to those mentioned in Sections (a),
(b), (c), (d) and (e).
Requisites of Reconstitution- The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the
original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a
piece of land; RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is sought to be reconstituted has
already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens System.
Judicial Reconstitution Procedure- Resort to other documents in Sec. 2(f) of R.A. No. 26 must
be employed only when the documents earlier referred to in Sections 2(a) to (e) do not avail.
Friar Lands Act (Act No. 1120)- Jurisprudence has consistently held that under Act No. 1120,
the equitable and beneficial title to the land passes to the purchaser the moment the first
installment is paid and a certificate of sale is issued, and when the purchaser finally pays the final
installment on the purchase price and is given a deed of conveyance and a certificate of title, the
title, at least in equity, retroacts to the time he first occupied the land, paid the first installment
and was issued the corresponding certificate of sale.
FACTS: The respondents filed a petition for reconstitution of the OCT covering a lot in
Talisay-Minglanilla Estate in the name of the Legal Heirs of Sofia Lazo. The OCT which was in
the possession of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cebu was allegedly either lost or
destroyed during the World War II. Respondent anchored her petition for reconstitution on Sec.
2(d) of Republic Act No. 26 (R.A. No. 26) which provides that an original certificate of title may
be reconstituted from an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case
may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued. The RTC found the petition
to be sufficient in form and substance and set the hearing of the petition. The RTC also directed
the Branch Clerk of Court to publish a copy of the Notice of Hearing in the Official Gazette and
to send copies thereof to the owners of all adjoining owners, the OSG, the Administrator of the
Land Registration Authority and the RD of Cebu Province. The petition was not opposed by
anyone. According to the Certification by the Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office (CENRO) of Cebu City, was granted to the heirs of Sofia Lazo via Patent. Respondent
claims she bought the property from the said owners who are also her relatives, as evidenced by
an Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs with Waiver of Inheritance Rights and Deed of Absolute
Sale. She claims that since the time of purchase, she has been occupying and possessing the land
and paying the realty taxes thereon. Thus, RTC ordered the Register of Deed of Cebu to
reconstitute the lost OCT in the name of the Legal Heirs of Sofia Lazo. The Republic through
the solicitor General opposed, the CA reversed the RTC judgment. However, upon a motion for
reconsideration filed by respondent, the CA in its Amended Decision reversed itself and held that
respondent has substantially complied with the requirements for reconstitution under RA 26.
The CA traced the ownership of Lot based on the records of the CENRO of the DENR. It found
that property was part of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate, the whole estate was
purchased by the Government of the Philippines and portions thereof were sold by installment to
actual possessors. One such was Sofica Lazo who was granted Sales Patent. This led to the
issuance by the Government f a Deed of Conveyance which led to the issuance by the RD of a
transfer certificate of title (TCT) in favor of the Heirs of Sofia Lazo, and not an original
certificate of title as claimed by respondent. Aside from the CENRO Certification, blue print of
Advance Plan and Technical Description of Lot, respondent also offered in evidence a Report
from the LRA. Thus, CA granted the motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether or not the documents presented by respondent constitute sufficient basis for the
reconstitution of title.
HELD: No, the documents presented by respondent did not constitute sufficient basis for the
reconstitution of title.
Respondent however failed to present an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or
patent pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued. The respondent merely relied
on the CENRO certification which is however not the authenticated copy of the decree of
registration or patent required by law. The certification plainly states only that the lot is patented
in the name of the Legal Heirs of Sofia Lazo. It is not even a copy of the decree of registration
or patent itself but a mere certification of the issuance of such patent. Also, she has not
established the issuance or existence of the certificate of title covering the subject lot nor of the
other documents that would prove the existence, execution and contents of the certificate of title
sought to the reconstituted.
The fact that no opposition is filed by a private party or by the Republic of the Philippines will
not receive respondent, as petitioner in the petition for reconstitution, of his burden of proving
not only the loss or destruction of the title sought to be reconstitute but also that at the time the
said title was lost or destroyed, he or his predecessor-in-interest was the registered owner thereof.
The Republic is not estopped from assailing the decision granting the petition if, on the basis of
the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.
