FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210467. February 18, 2019.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.JULIAN C. HABITO, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TEODORA HABITO REMOROZA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 18, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210467 (Republic of the Philippines v. Julian C. Habito, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact Teodora Habito Remoroza)
This is an appeal on certiorari seeking to reverse the June 21, 2012 Decision 1 and November 26, 2013 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 92447. The CA affirmed the Order 3 dated April 25, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Lucena City (RTC) in M.C. No. 2002-217, a case for reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1684 (376) of the Land Records of Lucena City.
The Antecedents
On November 18, 2002, Julian C. Habito (respondent), through his attorney-in-fact, Teodora Habito-Remoroza (Teodora), filed a petition for reconstitution of OCT No. 1684 (376) with the RTC.
In his petition, respondent alleged that his predecessor-in-interests, Spouses Florentino Cabula and Florencia Oblino, were the registered owners of the property covered by OCT No. 1684 (376). They were survived by their only daughter, Ines Cabula, married to Eugenio Habito, both deceased and survived, in turn, by herein respondent. He further averred that the original copy of OCT No. 1684 (376) on file with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Lucena City was burned in a fire in the said office. 4
To support his petition, respondent attached the following documents:
1. Photocopy of the original certificate of title; CAIHTE
2. Original copy of a Certification issued by Herminia L. Mendoza, OIC-Deputy Register of Deeds, stating that OCT No. 1684 (376) was among those titles presumed burned during the fire that razed the City Hall building of the City of Lucena on Aug. 30, 1983;
3. A document called Sentencia, in G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record No. 215 entitled "El Director de Terrenos, Peticionario, contra Anastasio Abadilla y otros, Reclamantes";
4. Sketch plan covering the subject property prepared by Engr. Allan C. Saliendra; and
5. A photocopy of Property Record Form covering Cadastral Lot No. 921. 5 (citations omitted)
Regina M. Medalla (Medalla), Chief of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) Reconstitution Division, requested the RTC's clerk of court to require respondent to submit to the LRA a clear, complete and legible copy of OCT No. 1684 (376), duly certified by said clerk of court. 6
Thereafter, the RTC reiterated LRA's request by directing respondent's counsel, Atty. Jaime E. Lantes (Atty. Lantes), to submit to the LRA the certified xerox copy of the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 1684 (376). Jose Mamerto B. Cabatu (Cabatu), Acting Chief of LRA Reconstitution Division, likewise requested the RTC to direct respondent to furnish the LRA certified copies of the a) Cadastral map of Lot No. 921 of Lucena Cadastre and its technical description; and b) the area computation of the said lot prepared by a duly licensed geodetic engineer.
On April 15, 2005, the RTC issued an Order enumerating respondent's evidence and set the instant petition for hearing. 7
On October 18, 2007, the LRA, through Cabatu, issued and filed a Report with the RTC, the pertinent portion of which reads:
3. The technical description of Lot No. 921 of the cadastral survey of Lucena, appearing on the reproduction of Original Certificate of Title No. 1684 was found correct after examination and due computation. Said technical description when plotted on the Municipal Indez Sheet No. 1387, does not appear to overlap previously plotted/decreed properties in the area. 8
The RTC Ruling
In its April 25, 2008 Order, the RTC granted the petition for judicial reconstitution of OCT No. 1684 (376) and ordered the Register of Deeds of Lucena City to reconstitute the missing title. 9 The RTC held that respondent satisfied all the jurisdictional requirements necessary for the reconstitution of the original certificate of title. 10
Aggrieved, the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its June 21, 2012 Decision, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC and ruled that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition 11 because respondent complied with the requirements required under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26. 12 The CA explained that while respondent attached a mere photocopy of OCT No. 1684 (376) in his petition, he, however, explicitly stated in his petition that he has in his possession a duplicate original copy of the said OCT and that he would produce it at the hearing. True enough, respondent presented the owner's duplicate certificate of title during trial. Moreover, respondent was able to satisfy all the elements necessary for the reconstitution of original certificate of titles. 13 DETACa
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in its November 26, 2013 Resolution. 14
Hence, this petition.
The Issue
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC that it had acquired jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution and in ordering the reconstitution of OCT No. 1684 (376) despite lack of evidence.
Petitioner argues that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution because respondent failed to attach the owner's duplicate or certified true copy of OCT No. 1684 (376). Petitioner claims that the evidence presented by respondent were insufficient to support his petition for reconstitution.
The Court's Ruling
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the arguments raised by petitioner are a mere rehash of what was already resolved and passed upon by the appellate court and the trial court.
In Republic of the Philippines v. Casimiro, 15 the Court emphasized:
The findings of fact of the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, cannot be disturbed by this Court, since:
As a rule, only questions of law may be appealed to the Court by certiorari. The Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to errors of law. Moreover, where as in this case the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court, such findings generally become conclusive and binding upon the Court. The Court will not disturb the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts unless there are compelling or exceptional reasons, and there is none in the instant petition.
Petitioner failed to present before this Court any compelling or exceptional argument or evidence that would justify a departure from the foregoing general rule. This Court defers to the findings of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals as to the weight accorded to respondent's evidence and the sufficiency thereof to substantiate his right to a reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. 305917. 16
In the present case, the RTC declared the petition to be sufficient in form and substance in its Order 17 dated April 25, 2008. Both the RTC and the CA found that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution and that the evidence presented by petitioner was adequate to order the reconstitution of OCT No. 1684 (376).
Based on the records, there is no factual basis for petitioner's claim that respondent failed to comply with the requirements for a petition for reconstitution as enumerated in Section 2 of R.A. No. 26, to wit:
Section 2. 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 aDSIHc
(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. 18
To support his petition, respondent attached the following documents: (a) Photocopy of OCT No. 1684 (376); (b) Original copy of a Certification issued by Herminia L. Mendoza, OIC-Deputy Register of Deeds, stating that OCT No. 1684 (376) was among those titles presumed burned during the fire that razed the City Hall building of the City of Lucena on Aug. 30, 1983; (c) A document called Sentencia, in G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record No. 215 entitled "El Director de Terrenos, Peticionario, contra Anastasio Abadilla y otros, Reclamantes"; (d) Sketch plan covering the subject property prepared by Engr. Allan C. Saliendra; and (e) A photocopy of Property Record Form covering Cadastral Lot No. 921. 19 During trial, petitioner presented and identified the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title before the RTC, to wit:
ATTY. LANTES:
Q: Do you know the land subject of this case?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where is it situated?
A: At Barangay Isabang, Lucena City, sir.
Q: What evidence do you have with respect to this land?
A: The title sir.
Q: Showing to you this document, is this the title OCT No. 1684 you are referring to?
A: Yes sir, this is an old title OCT No. 1684 registered in the name of Florencia Orbino (xerox attached to the record)
Q: I am showing this to Prosecutor Mercado for comparison, your honor.
A: The xerox copy is a faithful reproduction of the original, your honor.
ATTY. LANTES:
May we request this to be marked as ExhibitH (sic), the xerox copy is a reduction of the original title, your honor.
Q: What are you going to do with the original title in your possession?
A: I want it transferred in the name of my father, sir. 20
Petitioner's contention — that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition because respondent only attached the photocopy of the OCT and not the owner's duplicate of the OCT — is misplaced. The Court agrees with the ruling of the CA that although what was attached was only the photocopy of the OCT, respondent alleged in his petition that he has the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 1684 (376) which he actually and faithfully presented during the trial.
Petitioner likewise contends that the evidence presented by respondent were insufficient to support his petition for reconstitution. Petitioner's contention is anchored on the fact that respondent did not offer in evidence the original owner's duplicate of OCT No. 1684 (376), Exhibit H, to prove his compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the petition for reconstitution. Instead, his formal offer of Exhibit H was intended to prove the propriety of the reconstitution. ETHIDa
The Court does not agree.
It must be pointed out that the rules on formal offer of evidence do not apply in land registration cases. Petitioner failed to note Rule 143 of the Rules of Court which provides:
These Rules shall not apply to land registration, cadastral and election cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. (underscoring supplied)
By reason of this provision, literal adherence to the Rules of Court, which include rules of evidence, is not obligatory in a proceeding like the case under consideration. 21 Correspondingly, the rule on formal offer of evidence stated in Section 34, 22 Rule 132 of the Rules of Court is clearly not applicable to the present case involving a petition for reconstitution.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent was able to prove all the requisites necessary for the issuance of the OCT. First, respondent attached a photocopy of OCT No. 1684 (376) to his petition and he was able to present and identify the owner's duplicate certificate of title during the hearing. Second, respondent has satisfactorily proven his interest in the subject property covered by OCT No. 1684 (376) because he is the only successor-in-interest of the registered owner of the subject property. Third, respondent presented a Certification certifying that OCT No. 1684 (376) was among the titles presumed to be burnt during the fire that razed the City Hall building of Lucena City. Lastly, the correctness of the technical description stated in the said OCT was confirmed by the October 18, 2007 LRA Report. 23
The foregoing documents on record already constitute sufficient bases for reconstituting the lost certificate of title. It is well-settled that when a court, after hearing of a petition for reconstitution, finds that the evidence presented is sufficient and proper to grant the same, that the petitioner therein is the registered owner of the property, and that the certificate sought to be reconstituted was in force at the time it was lost, it becomes the duty of the court to issue the order of reconstitution. 24 This duty is mandatory. The law does not give the court discretion to deny the reconstitution if all the basic requirements have been complied with. 25
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 21, 2012 and Resolution dated November 26, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 92447 are hereby AFFIRMED. (Jardeleza, J., no part; Reyes, A.B., J., additional member.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 56-70; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
2.Id. at 71-72.
3.Id. at 73-76; penned by Judge Guillermo R. Andaya.
4.Supra note 1 at 56-57.
5.Id. at 58.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 59.
8.Id. at 61.
9.Supra note 3 at 75.
10.Rollo, p. 61.
11.Supra note 1 at 65.
12. AN ACT PROVIDING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS CERTIFICATES OF TITLE LOST OR DESTROYED. Approved on September 25, 1946.
13.Supra note 1 at 63-69.
14.Supra note 2.
15. 524 Phil. 796 (2006).
16.Id. at 820.
17.Supra note 3.
18.Supra note 12.
19.Supra note 5.
20.Rollo, p. 64.
21.Pardo v. Republic, 85 Phil. 323, 330 (1950).
22. Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
23.Supra note 1 at 67-69.
24.Republic of the Phils. v. Verzosa, 573 Phil. 503, 514 (2008).
25.Id.