The Supreme Court granted a Petition for Review on Certiorari and ordered the reconstitution of a lost land title covering a property in Pandi, Bulacan. In its ruling under G.R. No. 279277, the Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the Regional Trial Court's ruling that had allowed the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-23536.
The Case
On May 15, 2019, Faustino filed a petition for the reconstitution of TCT No. T-23536, which was allegedly registered in the name of Juan Aglipay (Juan) and Socorro Resurrection Aglipay (Socorro), collectively the spouses Aglipay.
Faustino alleged that the late spouses Aglipay were the previous registered owners of a parcel of land under TCT No. T-23536 issued by the Register of Deeds (ROD) of Bulacan, with an area of 14,233 square meters, situated in Barrio Bagbaguin, Pandi, Bulacan. The spouses allegedly bought the property on December 5, 1958 from a certain "Tomas Delos Santos," as described in the Kasulatan ng Tuluyang Bilihan ng Isang Lagay ng Lupa executed on the same date.
Faustino averred that the spouses Aglipay were in actual, open, continuous, adverse, and exclusive possession of the property since 1958 and paid the real property taxes on it. When Juan died intestate on August 9, 2009, he left the property to Socorro as his sole heir. Socorro then executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication placing ownership in her name.
A fire gutted the building of the ROD on March 7, 1987, resulting in the loss of the original copy of TCT No. T-23536. The owner's duplicate copy had been entrusted by Socorro to her nephew Lauro Resurrection-Pasco for safekeeping, but Lauro's house was badly hit by typhoon "Ondoy" in 2010 and the copy was lost. On May 3, 2016, Faustino purchased the property from Socorro through Lauro.
The RTC granted the petition in its Decision dated December 27, 2022. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC and dismissed the petition in its Decision dated August 30, 2024.
The Issue
The question before the Court was whether Faustino sufficiently complied with Republic Act No. 26 and the guidelines set in Republic v. Bercede for the judicial reconstitution of TCT No. T-23536.
The Ruling
The Court ruled in favor of Faustino. Its disposition reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 30, 2024 and the Resolution dated March 12, 2025 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 121270 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated December 27, 2022 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos City, Bulacan in P-282-2019 is REINSTATED."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 279277
- TCT No. T-23536; earlier TCT No. 19405 cancelled
- Property area: 14,233 square meters, in Barrio Bagbaguin, Pandi, Bulacan
- Purchase from Tomas Delos Santos: December 5, 1958
- Kasulatan registered: December 11, 1958
- Fire at the ROD: March 7, 1987
- Juan Aglipay died intestate: August 9, 2009
- Faustino purchased the property: May 3, 2016
- Petition for reconstitution filed: May 15, 2019
- RTC Decision: December 27, 2022
- CA Decision: August 30, 2024; CA Resolution: March 12, 2025
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 26 provides that a petitioner can present a deed of transfer or other document, on file in the registry of deeds, containing the description of the property, or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had been registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer certificate of title was issued. Here, the dorsal portion of the title stated that the Kasulatan was registered with the ROD, that TCT No. 19405 was cancelled, and that TCT No. T-23536 was issued. No one questioned the authenticity of the Kasulatan or contested the statements as to its registration.
Citing Rule 130, Section 4(c) of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the Court said a duplicate is admissible as the original unless there is a genuine question about the original's authenticity or it would be unfair to use the duplicate, exceptions that were not shown in this case.
The Court found that the technical description and sketch plan clearly showed the description of the property and were duly approved by the Land Registration Authority (LRA). It held that the CA's observation of a discrepancy in the name of the original owner was not significant since the description and plan clearly pertained to the same property. Atty. Jayferson F. Medrano, assistant chief of the Reconstitution Division of the LRA, submitted a Report dated February 26, 2020 verifying that the plan and technical description of Lot 3082-C of subdivision plan Psd-46509 were correct and pertained to the same lot.
The Court further found that Faustino's petition satisfied the requirements of the Fourth Guideline (B) laid down in Bercede, including a certificate that there were no structures on the property, the names and addresses of the owners of adjoining properties, a statement of no encumbrances, and a certification that there was no other petition for reconstitution concerning the property. Taking all the evidence together, the Court found that the petition and documents satisfactorily complied with Republic Act No. 26 and the guidelines in Bercede, and that the trial court properly granted the reconstitution.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 279277, penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.