Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

In 1993, Remedios Bacalso, in representation of the Heirs of Pascual Ocariza, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu an Application for Original Registration of a parcel of land, identified as Lot No. 4147 of the Cebu Cadastre 12, situated in Inayawan, Cebu City.

In a Report dated September 17, 1993 submitted to the Cebu RTC Branch 17 to which the application for original registration was lodged, Silverio Perez, Director of the Department of Registration of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), recommended the dismissal of the application for original registration in light of the following statements:

x x x x

2. Upon verification of our "Record Books of Cadastral Lots" on file in this Authority, it was found that "lot 4147, Cebu Cadastre was issued Decree No. 99211, on November 23, 1920 in the Cadastral proceeding, Cadastral Case No. 13, LRC Cadastral Record No. 9469 pursuant to the decision rendered thereon. Copy of said decree is not among the salvaged decrees on file in this Authority;"

3. Letter of this Authority of even date (September 17, 1993), a copy is attached hereto as Annex "A", was sent to the Register of Deeds, Cebu City, requesting for a certified xerox copy of the certificate of title issued to lot 4147, Cebu Cadsatre 12, pursuant to Decree No. 99211, issued on November 23, 1920 in Cadastral Case No. 13, LRC Cadastral Record No. 9469 be furnished to the Honorable Court.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing are respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court for its information & guidance, with the recommendation that the application in the instant proceedings be dismissed.

x x x x¹ (Italics, emphasis and underscoring supplied)

On November 5, 1993, Branch 17 of the RTC Cebu, on motion of herein respondents, issued an order considering the application of the Heirs of Pascual Ocariza "deemed withdrawn."

Years later or in 1997, respondents filed, this time, a Petition for the Reconstitution of Lost Certificate of Title covering the same lot before the RTC of Cebu, alleging, inter alia,

x x x x

4. That pursuant to the said DECREE No. 99211, an original certificate of title to said Lot No. 4147 had been issued by the Register of Deeds of Cebu, in the name of Pascual Ocariza, but the owner’s duplicate and original copy of which on file in the office of the Register of Deeds of Cebu, were lost during the last World War; and a certificate to the effect that the original copy of said certificate of title on file in the office of the Register of Deeds of Cebu was indeed either lost or destroyed during the Last World War, which certificate is hereto attached and marked as Annex "B";

x x x x² (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The Annex "B"³ which respondents attached to their petition, which was later marked as Exhibit "M,"⁴ was a Certification dated March 23, 1995 issued by the Deputy Register of the Registry of Deeds of Cebu City reading:

x x x x

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that records on file with this office do not show that there is an existing OCT/TCT covering Lot. No. 4147 situated at Bulacao, Pardo, Cebu City claimed to be owned by PASCUAL OCARIZA. However, this office is not in position to certify as to whether a title is issued or not as verified by the undersigned personnel.

This certification is issued upon the request of MARIA QUIMADA for whatever legal purpose it may serve.

x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The Office of the Solicitor General, which was notified of the petition, entered its appearance and deputized the City Prosecutor of Cebu City to render assistance in the case.⁵

After respondents rested their case, the Cebu City Prosecutor did not present any evidence against the petition.⁶

Branch 5 of the Cebu City RTC to which the petition was lodged, by Decision⁷ of February 27, 2001, ordered the reconstitution of the "lost original certificate of title in the name of Pascual Ocariza," upon payment of the required fees.

In granting respondents’ petition for reconstitution, the trial court synthesized their evidence as follows:

Remedios Bacalso, 60 years old, single, government employee and a resident of Inayawan, Pardo, Cebu City, testified that she is one of the petitioners in this petition; that she is familiar with subject parcel of land known as Lot No. 4147, Cebu Cadastre 12, described on Plan Ap-072217-001065 situated in the Barangay of Inayawan, Cebu City with an area of 438 square meters which is decreed in the name of Pascual Ocariza pursuant to Decree No. 99211 per Report dated September 29, 1998 (Exh. "K") from Alfredo R. Enriquez, Administrator and signed by Benjamin M. Bustos, Reconstituting Officer and Chief Reconstitution Division and another Report dated September 17, 1993 (Exh. "L" and "L-1" from Silverio Perez, Director, Department of Registration Land Registration Authority; that she knows Pascual Ocariza because he is the cousin of her father and her grandfather; that Pascual Ocariza is already dead; that she knows that a title of this land was issued to Pascual Ocariza based on Decree No. 99211 but the owner’s duplicate copy of said title was lost; that the original copy of the certificate of title in the possession of the Register of Deeds, Cebu City was also lost per Certification dated March 23, 1995 (Exh. "M") issued by the Register of Deeds, Cebu City x x x.

On cross-examination, witness testified that Pascual Ocariza was her grandfather who died single; that the brothers and sisters of Pascual Ocariza died already long time ago; that her father, Alejandro Bacalso, is the nephew of Pascual Ocariza; that there are plenty of other persons who are related to Pascual Ocariza; that she is the one who represented her grandfather Pascual Ocariza because they were plenty and that is the reason why the title should be issued in the name of Pascual Ocariza because they are going to subdivide this lot; that they have been in possession of this land for fifteen (15) years; that the tax declaration of said land was registered in the name of Pascual Ocariza.⁸ (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The Solicitor General appealed⁹ the trial court’s decision, arguing that respondents failed to prove their interest in Lot No. 4147,¹⁰ he citing Heirs of Pedro Pinote v. Dulay¹¹ which heldthat

x x x Courts x x x should not only require strict compliance with the requirements of R.A. 26 but, in addition, should ascertain the identity of every person who files a petition for reconstitution of title to land. If the petition is filed by someone other than the registered owner, the court should spare no effort to assure itself of the authenticity and due execution of the petitioner’s authority to institute the proceeding.¹² (Underscoring supplied)

By Decision¹³ of April 6, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, reasoning as follows:

It must be emphasized that the instant case involves a petition to reconstitute the lost certificate of title covering Lot 4147, Cebu Cadastre in the name of the decreed owner Pascual Ocariza. As such, no right has been prejudiced for the fact that the reconstituted certificate of title is in the name of the decreed owner Pascual Ocariza. Since Pascual Ocariza is already dead, suffice it to state that his heirs are the most interested in the property, who are considered the assigns and/or successors-in-interest, including Remedios Bacalso whose relationship with Pascual Ocariza has been substantially established and never been questioned by the appellant before the trial court.

Indeed, courts must proceed with extreme caution in proceedings for reconstitution of title to land under R.A. No. 26 and to ascertain the identity of the person who files the petition. However, record shows and reflected in the assailed judgment dated February 27, 2001 that nobody oppose[d] the petition during the initial hearing. Regrettably, not even the appellant or his deputies attended the initial hearing and present[ed] evidence against the petition. More importantly, appellant did not even challenge the authority of the appellee to file and prosecute the Petition for Reconstitution of Title while the same [was] pending. Nevertheless, the reliance of the appellant on the Dulay¹⁴ case is misplaced. The ruling in the said case emphasized that:

The court could not receive evidence proving that Petra Pinote, instead of Pedro, is a registered co-owner of Lot 2381. The reconstitution or reconstruction of a certificate of title literally and within the meaning of R.A. 26 denotes restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition.[15]

The case at bar however is different since the lost original title will be reconstituted in the name of Pascual Ocariza based on Decree No. 99211, and not in the name of petitioner Remedios Bacalso.¹⁶ (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari¹⁷ filed by the Solicitor General, arguing that "not being legally authorized to institute the Petition for Reconstitution below, Remedios Bacalso cannot act for or on behalf of her supposed principals in filing the same and obtaining the relief prayed for."¹⁸

The Court finds the petition meritorious not on the ground advanced by the Solicitor General but on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the alleged Decree No. 99211, and an Original Certificate of Title, was issued to Pascual Ocariza, respondents’ alleged predecessor-in-interest.

Assuming arguendo that there was indeed a Decree No. 99211 issued on November 23, 1920 which is, however, "not among the salvaged decrees on file in the [Land Registration Authority]," there is no statement, as shown in the above-quoted September 17, 1993 Report of the LRA, that the decree was issued in the name of Pascual Ocariza.

That even respondents were not aware of any such decree is shown by the fact that, as reflected above, before filing their Petition for Reconstitution in 1997, they had years earlier filed an application for original registration covering the lot, which application was deemed withdrawn by Branch 17 of the RTC Cebu on November 5, 1993, on their motion, after the LRA recommended its dismissal.

It was thus palpably wrong for Branch 5 of the RTC Cebu to credit respondents’ attorney-in-fact Remedios Bacalso’s testimony that the decree was issued in the name of Pascual Ocariza "per" LRA Report dated September 17, 1993.

Just at it was palpably wrong for the trial court to credit Remedios Bacalso’s testimony that the decree was issued in the name of Pascual Ocariza "per" the LRA Report dated September 29, 1998. For nothing in said Report is there any statement that the decree was issued in the name of Pascual Ocariza.

Finally, it was just as palpably wrong for the trial court to credit Remedios Bacalso’s testimony that a title was issued covering the lot in the name of Pascual Ocariza, the duplicate copy of which was lost as well as the original copy in the possession of the Cebu Registry of Deeds "per Certification dated March 23, 1995 (Exhibit ‘M’) issued by the Register of Deeds." For as the earlier-quoted Exhibit "M"-March 23, 1995 Certification of the Cebu Register of Deeds states, "records on file with this office do not show that there is an existing OCT/TCT covering Lot No. 4147 . . . claimed to be owned by PASCUAL OCARIZA," and that "this office is not in [a] position to certify as to whether a title is issued or not."

The foregoing discussion leaves it unnecessary to pass upon petitioner’s sole argument that Remedios Bacalso, not being legally authorized, cannot act for her supposed principals to file the Petition for Review.

In fine, the affirmance by the appellate court of the trial court’s decision must fail.

WHEREFORE, the challenged April 6, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The "Petition for Reconstitution of Lost Certificate of Title" of Lot No. 4147, Cebu Cadastre, Cebu City is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice

Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

¹ Records, p. 3.

² Id. at 1.

³ Id. at 4.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Id. at 44-47.

⁶ Id. at 72.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Id. at 70-72.

⁹ Id. at 74.

¹⁰ CA rollo, p. 14.

¹¹ G.R. No. 56694, July 2, 1990, 187 SCRA 12.

¹² Id. at 20. Vide CA rollo, pp. 20-21.

¹³ Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. Id at 58-64.

¹⁴ Heirs of Pedro Pinote v. Dulay, G.R. No. 56694, July 2, 1990, 187 SCRA 12.

¹⁵ Id. at 19.

¹⁶ CA rollo, pp. 62-63.

¹⁷ Rollo, pp. 7-20.

¹⁸ Id. at 15.