CASE 2019-0025: MILA B. RECAMARA VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 211810. AUGUST 28, 2019, REYES, A., JR., J. (SUBJECT/S: RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE; COURT MUST EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS) (BRIEF TITLE: RECAMARA VS REPUBLIC)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

 “WHEREFORE, the October 9, 2013 Decision and February 26, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals m CA-G.R. CV No. 02859 are AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING FOR JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION UNDER RA NO. 26?

 

THE RESTORATION OF A LOST OR DESTROYED TORRENS CERTIFICATE TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM AND CONDITION.

 

The purpose of the proceeding is to reproduce, after observing the procedures laid down by law, the subject certificate of title in the form it was prior to its loss or destruction.25 Such proceedings presuppose the prior existence of the certificate, seeking its reissuance. Sections 2 and 3 of RA No. 26 enumerate the source documents upon which judicial reconstitution may issue. The first provision applies to reconstitution of original certificates of title, while the second applies to reconstitution of transfer certificates of title.

 

HOW WILL ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES OF TITLE BE RECONSTITUTED?

 

Section 2 (of RA 26). Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:

 

(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

( c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;

( d) 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;

( e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and

(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

 

HOW SHALL TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE  BE RECONSTITUTED?

 

Section 3 (of RA 26). Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:

 

(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

( c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;

( d) The 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;

( e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and

(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

 

WHAT WAS THE RULING OF CA?

 

In this case, the CA held that Mila was not able to present any of the documents mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the above-shown Section 3.

 

WAS THE CA CORRECT?

 

WRONG BECAUSE SECTION 3 REFERS TO RECONSTITUTION OF CTC WHILE MILA’S TITLE WAS AN ORIGINAL TITLE. THUS SECTION 2 SHOULD BE APPLIED.

 

In so ruling, the appellate court committed a reversible error.

 

Mila’s petition for reconstitution is anchored mainly on Decree No. 299019. Verily, such is not among the classes of documents contemplated by Section 3. However, this should not have had any bearing on the CA’s decision, as said provision applies to proceedings for the reconstitution of transfer certificates of title. Mila’s petition was one for the reconstitution of an original certificate of title, which is governed by Section 2.

 

It is significant to point out that Section 2( d) sanctions judicial reconstitution based on “[ a ]n authenticated copy of the decree of registration x x x pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued.” In her petition for review, Mila contends that Decree No. 299019, pursuant to said provision, constitutes sufficient and proper basis for the reconstitution of OCT No. 0-10245.

 

IF SECTION 2 IS APPLIED WOULD MILA’S TITLE BE RECONSTITUTED?

 

NO BECAUSE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENT SHE SUBMITTED WAS QUESTIONABLE.

 

Going back to the instant case, a simple perusal of the second page of Decree No. 299019 will reveal that the decree suffers from the same defects as that presented in Pasicolan. For one, there is a blank space above the name Enrique Altavas, indicated to be the Chief of the GLRO at the time. On that space should appear his signature, as he was tasked by law to issue decrees of registration.33 Instead, Decree No. 299019 bears the signature of the Deputy Chief of the GLRO, inscribed only for the purpose of certifying the decree as a true copy. Further, the signature of Hon. Francisco Soriano, the CFI judge who allegedly issued Decree No. 299019, is nowhere to be found. . . . .  (ADDITIONAL DEFECTS CITED)

 

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2019-0025-Mila B. Recamara Vs. Republic of the Philippines

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.