Mazy's Capital, Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines

A reconstituted title issued pursuant to a void judicial reconstitution proceeding—where the petitioner failed to present competent sources of reconstitution under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26 and failed to prove the statutory requisites for reconstitution—is void ab initio and cannot be the source of any right; a reivindicatoria decision founded solely on such void reconstituted title is likewise void and cannot benefit from res judicata or immutability of judgments.

The dispute centers on Lot 937, a 46,143-square meter property in Cebu City forming part of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, which has been the subject of multiple cases reaching the Supreme Court over the decades. The Commonwealth of the Philippines initiated expropriation proceedings in 1938 to acquire the lot, then registered under TCT No. 5306 in the name of Eutiquio Uy Godinez, whose estate was administered by his widow, Felisa Sy Cip, for the development program of the Armed Forces of the Philippines under the National Defense Act. Competing claims of ownership between the Republic and the Godinez family—and later Mazy's Capital, Inc., which purchased the property from Eutiquio's son Mariano in 2018—gave rise to an expropriation case, a reconstitution case, a reivindicatoria action, and the present cancellation case, all revolving around whether just compensation was paid and whether the reconstituted title was validly issued.

The dispute involves Lot 937, a 46,143-square meter property in Cebu City forming part of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate. The lot was originally registered under TCT No. 5306 in the name of Eutiquio Uy Godinez, who was married to Felisa Sy Cip. On September 5, 1938, the Commonwealth of the Philippines filed an expropriation complaint against various landowners of the Friar Lands, docketed as Civil Case No. 781, to carry out the development program of the Armed Forces of the Philippines under the National Defense Act. Lot 937 was among the parcels included, provisionally valued at PHP 1,845.72. As administratrix of Eutiquio's estate, Felisa filed her Answer. The Commonwealth deposited PHP 9,500.00 with the Provincial Treasurer of Cebu as provisional value for all the lots and supposedly took possession of Lot 937.

During the pendency of the expropriation proceedings, Felisa filed a motion stating that she found the value of PHP 1,845.72 acceptable as just compensation and praying that the Commonwealth, already in possession, be ordered to pay her. The CFI granted this in a Decision Parcial dated April 22, 1939. Pursuant thereto, the Commonwealth supposedly paid Felisa PHP 1,845.72, as evidenced by a Provincial Voucher dated May 25, 1939. The CFI eventually rendered a Decision on May 14, 1940, setting just compensation for each expropriated lot, but deemed Lot 937 already resolved based on the 1939 Partial Decision. World War II disrupted the proceedings and caused controversies over the legal ownership and possession of the Friar Lands. All 18 lots subject of the Expropriation Case were later converted into a national airport in 1947 by virtue of a Presidential Proclamation.

On March 12, 1954, Ramona U. Agustines, claiming to be attorney-in-fact of Mariano Godinez (Eutiquio's son), filed a Petition for Judicial Reconstitution of Title with the CFI, docketed as G.L.R.O. Record No. 5988. The petition alleged that Mariano inherited the property from Eutiquio, was the registered owner of Lot 937 covered by a title lost during the war, was in possession of the property, and that it was not encumbered. The CFI granted the petition on March 1, 1956, after finding that Mariano was the registered owner and that both the owner's duplicate and the original copy of the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed during the war. The reconstitution was based on a technical description, a survey plan, and a tax declaration in the name of Eutiquio. Mariano was issued TCT No. RT-6757.

On January 27, 1997, Eugenio Amores and Domingo Antigua, supposed attorneys-in-fact of Mariano, filed a reivindicatoria complaint against the Republic before RTC-Br. 9, Cebu City, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-19845, alleging that Mariano was the absolute and exclusive owner of Lot 937. The complaint asserted that Mariano was always in possession through his overseer until the early 1990s when the Republic, through the PNP, took possession based on the expropriation case despite non-payment of just compensation. On April 18, 2002, the RTC-Br. 9 ruled that Mariano was the absolute and exclusive owner of Lot 937, as evidenced by TCT No. RT-6757, and that he remained as such since the Expropriation Case was never consummated because the Republic failed to prove payment of just compensation. The RTC-Br. 9 found that the Republic did not present any deed of sale, had not transferred the title to its name, made no annotation of the judgment of expropriation on the title, filed no motion for execution or writ of possession, and that the provisional deposit was insufficient to prove payment. The CA affirmed this decision, agreeing that the Republic failed to prove payment of just compensation, and noting that the copy of the 1939 Partial Decision was in Spanish without official translation, so no evidentiary weight was given to it. This CA decision became final and executory.

Thereafter, the RTC-Br. 9 issued writs of execution and demolition in 2010 upon Mariano's motion. Various parties sought to forestall implementation: Archangels Residents Mergence Inc. (ARMI) filed a motion to quash, then a Rule 65 petition with the CA, which was dismissed as filed out of time; ARMI's petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed for defective verification. AFP members residing on Lot 937 filed a petition for annulment of judgment, which the CA dismissed for lack of extrinsic fraud, ruling they were bound by the RTC-Br. 9's decision against the Republic. Despite these efforts, demolition pushed through in September 2022 and was fully implemented by December 14, 2022, leaving only a building owned by the AFP Visayas Command. Meanwhile, on February 15, 2018, while the Reivindicatoria Case was under review, Mariano sold Lot 937 to Mazy's Capital, Inc. through a Deed of Absolute Sale, and Mazy's caused the cancellation of Mariano's title, obtaining TCT No. 107-2018002380.

Parallel to the execution proceedings, the Republic, through the DND, filed on May 8, 2013 a Complaint for cancellation of reconstituted title against Mariano and the Register of Deeds of Cebu City, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-39718 and raffled to RTC-Br. 12. The Republic alleged that it was the rightful owner having expropriated the property and paid just compensation in 1939; that Mariano caused the surreptitious reconstitution of title by misrepresenting that the property was in his possession and had no lien or encumbrance, deliberately omitting the prior expropriation; and that the Republic was not notified of the reconstitution proceedings. The Republic attached a Provincial Voucher showing Felisa acknowledged receipt of PHP 1,845.72. Mariano filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of forum shopping, res judicata, estoppel, conclusiveness of judgment, lack of jurisdiction, prescription, and laches. On March 31, 2015, the RTC-Br. 12 granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, ruling that any affirmative relief would affect issues already settled. The Republic appealed to the CA, which on March 20, 2020 granted the appeal and remanded the case to RTC-Br. 12, holding that equity and substantial justice demand that the Republic be heard, especially on the validity and integrity of a Torrens title. The CA denied Mazy's motion for reconsideration on September 30, 2021. Mazy's then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the Court conducted oral arguments on February 22, 2023 and an ocular inspection of Lot 937 and the case records on March 23, 2023, where the Court personally examined the original Provincial Voucher in the archived Expropriation Case records.

• Res Judicata and Stare Decisis: Mazy's argued that the Cancellation Case is merely a re-litigation of issues already settled in the Reivindicatoria Case where Mariano was adjudged with finality to be the absolute owner of Lot 937, and that the Republic was given a full opportunity to present evidence but failed to do so. Mazy's further invoked stare decisis, citing Valdehueza vs. Republic, Republic vs. Lim, Federated Realty Corporation vs. CA, and San Roque Realty and Development Corporation vs. Republic as having established the Republic's failure to complete the expropriation of lots in the Banilad Friar Land Estates.
• Section 19 of RA No. 26: Mazy's insisted that the CA erroneously applied Section 19 of Republic Act No. 26, since the reconstituted title was not issued in the name of another person but remained in the name of the family of Mariano, and thus Section 19 cannot apply to the present case.
• Forum Shopping: Mazy's raised that the Republic willfully submitted a false certificate of non-forum shopping by erroneously stating that the Reivindicatoria Case is an action for recovery of possession despite knowing it pertained to Mariano's recovery of ownership.
• Prescription and Estoppel: Mazy's assailed the CA's finding that the Republic's action cannot be barred by prescription and estoppel.
• Innocent Purchaser for Value: Mazy's claimed it is an innocent purchaser for value, having had the right to rely on the clean title of Mariano as well as the final and executory judgment in the Reivindicatoria Case.
• Provincial Voucher Inadmissibility: Mazy's argued the Provincial Voucher cannot be considered evidence because it was not formally offered, is not newly discovered evidence, is a private document that should have been authenticated under the Rules on Evidence, and is a fake. It also argued the Court is not a trier of facts and the petition must be resolved purely on legal grounds.
• RTC Jurisdiction: Mazy's questioned the RTC-Br. 12's jurisdiction, arguing the Republic's Complaint is actually an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47, which the RTC cannot entertain owing to the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference.

• Ownership by Expropriation: The Republic countered that Mazy's mistakenly believes it validly purchased Lot 937 from Mariano whose only proof of ownership is an erroneously reconstituted title, when in fact the subject property—a military camp outside the commerce of man—belongs to the Republic by virtue of expropriation proceedings conducted in 1938.
• Void Reivindicatoria Judgment: The Republic raised that the 1939 Partial Decision in the Expropriation Case takes precedence and should prevail over the April 18, 2002 Decision in the Reivindicatoria Case, which is a void judgment.
• Nature of Action: The Republic insisted it is not seeking to recover ownership or possession but merely seeking the nullification of the reconstitution proceedings and the issuance of TCT No. RT-6757, considering that Mariano fraudulently secured the title despite the expropriation and payment of just compensation.
• Supervening Event: The Republic argued that proof of payment of just compensation has been found and is a supervening event rendering the supposed finality of the Reivindicatoria Case inequitable, and that res judicata cannot be applied and even if it does, the rule allows exceptions.
• Section 19 of RA No. 26: The Republic contended that the CA correctly applied Section 19 because TCT No. 5306 was registered in the name of Eutiquio Godinez and not the "family of Mariano Godinez," and that a reconstituted title attended by fraud is void ab initio and may be attacked at any time.
• Property of Public Dominion: The Republic argued that Lot 937 is a property of public dominion outside the commerce of man, and that the innocent purchaser for value defense cannot be invoked when lands of the public domain are involved.
• Estoppel Against the State: The Republic maintained that estoppel does not operate against the State, and that national security and defense outweigh the alleged rights of Mazy's.
• Void Reconstitution: The Republic argued that the reconstitution decision is void for lack of jurisdiction due to non-compliance with the requirements of Republic Act No. 26, and that the reconstitution petition did not allege and prove the fact of loss of the title sought to be reconstituted.

• RTC Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC-Br. 12 had jurisdiction over the Republic's Complaint for cancellation of reconstituted title.
• Res Judicata: Whether the doctrine of res judicata bars the Republic from relitigating the issue of payment of just compensation, given the finality of the Reivindicatoria Case decision.
• Judicial Notice: Whether the Supreme Court may take judicial notice of the records of the Expropriation Case and the Reconstitution Case.
• Validity of Reconstitution: Whether the CFI's order granting the petition for reconstitution of title is void for non-compliance with Republic Act No. 26.
• Payment of Just Compensation: Whether the Republic had in fact paid the amount of just compensation for Lot 937 in the Expropriation Case.
• Innocent Purchaser for Value: Whether Mazy's is an innocent purchaser for value, and whether the case should be remanded for reception of evidence on this issue.

• RTC Jurisdiction: Yes. The RTC-Br. 12 had jurisdiction over the subject matter, as the complaint involves title to real property with an assessed value of PHP 3,460,730.00, falling within the RTC's exclusive original jurisdiction under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The complaint is an action for cancellation and nullification of title based on fraud, not an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
• Res Judicata: No. The doctrine of res judicata and immutability of judgments do not apply in favor of void judgments. The Reivindicatoria Case decision was void because it was based solely on a void reconstituted title, and the broader interest of substantial justice justifies relaxation of these procedural rules.
• Judicial Notice: Yes. The Court may take judicial notice of the records of the Expropriation Case and the Reconstitution Case as official acts of the judicial department, pursuant to Rule 129, Section 1 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
• Validity of Reconstitution: The CFI's reconstitution order is void. The reconstitution was based on a technical description, survey plan, and tax declaration—documents that do not qualify as competent sources under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26. Mariano also failed to prove he was the registered owner, that his title was in force when lost, and that the title was actually lost or destroyed.
• Payment of Just Compensation: Yes. The Republic had fully paid just compensation to Eutiquio's estate as evidenced by the Provincial Voucher found in the Expropriation Case records, which the Court examined and found authentic. Ownership over Lot 937 transferred to the Republic upon such payment.
• Innocent Purchaser for Value: Remanded. The Court cannot resolve this factual issue on the present record; the case is remanded to the CA for reception of evidence on whether Mazy's is an innocent purchaser for value and whether the Republic is guilty of estoppel.

• RTC Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint. The Republic's Complaint sought the cancellation and nullification of Mariano's reconstituted title based on fraud, premised on the Republic's assertion of ownership over Lot 937. This is an action involving title to real property, not one incapable of pecuniary estimation. The assessed value of PHP 3,460,730.00, found in the Reivindicatoria Complaint attached to the Republic's Complaint, places the action within the RTC's jurisdiction. Mazy's argument on judicial stability was rejected because the action is not for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 but for cancellation/nullification of title—an action that may be filed before the RTC, as distinguished from annulment of judgment which falls under the CA's exclusive original jurisdiction. Following Spouses Aboitiz vs. Spouses Po and Heirs of Procopio Borras vs. Heirs of Eustaquio Borras, a void reconstituted title issued pursuant to a court order may be assailed before another RTC through an action for reconveyance, annulment of title, or quieting of title. The nature of the action is controlling, not the fact that it collaterally attacks a prior court order.

• Res Judicata: While the finality of the Reivindicatoria Case decision would ordinarily trigger immutability of judgments and res judicata, these principles are procedural rules that may be relaxed to serve substantial justice. More importantly, they do not apply in favor of void judgments. The Court found that the Reivindicatoria Case decision was void because it was based solely on the void reconstituted TCT No. RT-6757, which emanated from a void reconstitution order. Given the special circumstances—the surfacing of the Provincial Voucher in extant judicial records proving payment of just compensation, the decades-long dispute, and the displacement of numerous residents—the broader interest of substantial justice justified relaxation of procedural rules. The Court acknowledged the Republic's negligence in failing to present the Provincial Voucher during the Reivindicatoria Case despite having access to the Expropriation Case records, as evidenced by its presentation of other documents from those records, but found this did not preclude relaxation given the void nature of the prior judgments. The Court also noted that the RTC-Br. 9 or the parties could have subpoenaed the entire Expropriation Case records, which would have surfaced the Provincial Voucher and debunked the claim of non-payment.

• Judicial Notice: Rule 129, Section 1 mandates judicial notice of official acts of the judicial department. Following Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Clarion Printing House, Inc. vs. NLRC, courts may take judicial notice of records of another case in another court involving one of the parties, especially where cases are closely interwoven or interdependent. The Court had ordered the Executive Judge of the RTC, Cebu City to locate, secure, and transmit the records of both the Expropriation Case and the Reconstitution Case, making it proper and necessary to take judicial notice of these records. The Court heard the parties' arguments on the propriety of judicial notice, satisfying the requirement of Rule 129, Section 3 that parties be heard on matters decisive of a material issue.

• Validity of Reconstitution: Republic Act No. 26 governs judicial reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens titles, and its requirements must be strictly complied with to prevent anomalous titles. For transfer certificates of title, reconstitution may be based only on documents enumerated under Section 3 in the specified order: (a) owner's duplicate; (b) co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate; (c) certified copy previously issued; (d) deed of transfer on file with the registry of deeds; (e) document on file in the registry of deeds by which the property is mortgaged, leased, or encumbered; and (f) any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper. Before resorting to paragraph (f), the petitioner must first show efforts to obtain documents under paragraphs (a) to (e) and failure to find them. Following the principle of ejusdem generis, paragraph (f) contemplates only documents from official sources recognizing the ownership of the owner and predecessors-in-interest. Tax declarations, survey plans, and technical descriptions have been ruled insufficient as sources of reconstitution. The records showed the CFI reconstituted Mariano's title based solely on a technical description, survey plan, and tax declaration—none qualifying under paragraphs (a) to (e), with no showing Mariano exerted efforts to obtain the prior documents. Moreover, Mariano failed to prove he was the registered owner (the documents were in the names of Eutiquio and Felisa, not Mariano), that his title was in force when lost, and that the title was actually lost or destroyed. His sole witness, Agustines, lacked personal knowledge of these facts, and no deed of self-adjudication, extrajudicial settlement, or will was presented to evidence the transfer from Eutiquio to Mariano. The CFI's order was thus void for lack of factual support and grave abuse of discretion. Being void, it can never attain finality and may be slain at sight. The nullity extends to TCT No. RT-6757 and, in turn, to the RTC-Br. 9's decision in the Reivindicatoria Case, which relied solely on the void reconstituted title to determine Mariano's ownership—distinguishing this case from Amoroso vs. Alegre, Jr., where ownership was independently proven through a Bureau of Lands certification and cadastral list.

• Payment of Just Compensation: The prevailing rule is that title to expropriated property passes to the expropriator only upon full payment of just compensation. Although this is a factual issue, the Court resolved it in the interest of judicial economy because it could be determined by examining the judicial records of the Expropriation Case, which were now in the Court's custody. After an assiduous study of the records, including the original Provincial Voucher examined during the March 23, 2023 ocular inspection, the Court found that the Republic had fully paid just compensation. The Provincial Voucher is a public document—a written official act of the CFI's Clerk of Court, Eugenio Rodil—and therefore admissible without further proof of due execution and genuineness. Even if treated as a private document, its authenticity was proven through comparison of Felisa's signature with that on the Mocion (her motion for payment dated April 19, 1939), which Mazy's expressly admitted during oral arguments was remarkably similar to the signature on the Provincial Voucher. Both documents are also ancient documents under Rule 132, Section 21, being over 30 years old, produced from proper custody (the archived Expropriation Case records), and unblemished by alteration or suspicious circumstance. The paginations and dates of the relevant records revealed a logical sequence: Felisa filed the Mocion (pages 79 and 87), the CFI issued the 1939 Partial Decision granting it (pages 82 and 90), and the CFI released the amount through the Provincial Voucher dated May 25, 1939 (pages 91 and 99). Mazy's argument that the Provincial Treasurer's office certified no such voucher was found in its records was rejected, as the voucher was executed by the CFI's Clerk of Court in connection with the Expropriation Case, making the case records its proper repository. The Provincial Voucher showed Felisa received PHP 1,845.72 as just compensation for Lot 937, thereby transferring ownership to the Republic. Republic Act No. 9443, which Mazy's invoked to validate its title, was found inapplicable because it validates titles issued pursuant to sales under Act No. 1120 (Friar Lands Act) lacking the Secretary's approval, not void reconstituted titles from void judicial reconstitution proceedings.

• Innocent Purchaser for Value: While a void title may be the source of a valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the determination of good faith is a question of fact outside the ambit of a Rule 45 petition. Mazy's was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence on this issue, as the case was dismissed without trial. Due process demands that Mazy's be granted a full chance to prove its claim, and the Republic an equal opportunity to disprove it. The Court remanded the case to the CA, providing detailed guidelines: what facts and information Mazy's obtained at the time of purchase; whether Mazy's was aware of the Republic's claim in the 2013 complaint; whether Mazy's had actual or constructive knowledge of the pending Cancellation Case; whether Mazy's had knowledge of circumstances that should have alerted it to defects in Mariano's reconstitution petition; what a reasonably prudent person would do; what investigation Mazy's conducted; and whether the Republic is guilty of laches. The Court noted that when dealing with reconstituted titles, the reconstituted title itself is a circumstance that should alert the purchaser to investigate, and that buyers must be continuing purchasers for value and in good faith until registration of the conveyance. The principle of equitable estoppel may operate against the State if the land was already alienated to an innocent purchaser for value and the government did not contest the title for an unreasonable length of time.

• Void Judgment — A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent and may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment; it may simply be ignored. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. A void order can never attain finality. The Court applied this doctrine to declare void the CFI's 1956 reconstitution order (for lack of factual support and grave abuse of discretion in non-compliance with Republic Act No. 26), the reconstituted TCT No. RT-6757 (which emanated from the void order), and the RTC-Br. 9's 2002 decision in the Reivindicatoria Case (which relied solely on the void reconstituted title as the basis for determining Mariano's ownership).

• Strict Compliance with Republic Act No. 26 (Reconstitution Law) — The requirements for judicial reconstitution of title must be strictly complied with, as reconstitution made easy could be the source of anomalous titles and a convenient substitute for original registration. The requisites are: (a) the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) the documents presented are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution; (c) the petitioner is the registered owner or has an interest therein; (d) the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed; and (e) the description, area, and boundaries are substantially the same as those in the lost title. For transfer certificates of title, reconstitution may be based only on sources enumerated under Section 3 in the specified order. Before resorting to Section 3(f), the petitioner must show efforts to obtain documents under paragraphs (a) to (e) and failure to find them. Following ejusdem generis, paragraph (f) contemplates only documents from official sources recognizing ownership. Tax declarations, survey plans, and technical descriptions are not reliable sources of reconstitution. The Court found all these requirements unmet in the Reconstitution Case.

• Relaxation of Res Judicata and Immutability of Judgments — The doctrines of immutability of judgments and res judicata are procedural rules that may be relaxed to serve substantial justice. They do not apply in favor of void judgments. The Court relaxed these rules given the special circumstances: a decades-long dispute, the surfacing of the Provincial Voucher in extant judicial records proving payment of just compensation, and the displacement of numerous residents. The broader interest of justice justifies relaxation when blind and stubborn adherence to res judicata would involve the sacrifice of justice to technicality.

• Judicial Notice of Records of Other Cases — Courts may take judicial notice of the records of another case in another court involving one of the parties, pursuant to Rule 129, Section 1, which mandates judicial notice of official acts of the judicial department. This is especially proper where cases are closely interwoven or interdependent, as where the controversy in one case finds its origin in the records of another.

• Innocent Purchaser for Value — A purchaser of registered land for value may safely rely on the face of the Torrens title without exploring beyond its four corners, but only if: (1) the seller is the registered owner; (2) the land is in the possession of the registered owner; and (3) the buyer was not aware of any claim or interest of another person, or any defect or restriction in the title or the seller's capacity to convey. Absent any condition, the buyer must exercise a higher degree of diligence by inquiring beyond the title. When dealing with reconstituted titles, the reconstituted title itself is a circumstance that should alert the purchaser to investigate. Buyers must be continuing purchasers for value and in good faith until registration of the conveyance. The burden of proving innocent purchaser for value status is on the party asserting it, by clear and convincing evidence.

• Equitable Estoppel Against the State — The State generally cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake, or error of its officials or agents. However, equitable estoppel may operate against the State if: (1) the land was already alienated to an innocent purchaser for value; and (2) the government did not undertake any act to contest the title for an unreasonable length of time.

• Lis Pendens — A purchaser of property with actual or constructive knowledge of pending litigation is bound by the outcome, regardless of whether made a party. A transferee pendente lite stands in the shoes of the transferor and is bound by any judgment rendered. The annotation of lis pendens should prompt a prudent purchaser to inquire and verify if the suit was finally terminated.

• "A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent and may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. In this sense, a void order can never attain finality." — This is the canonical formulation of the void judgment doctrine as applied to the reconstitution order and all derivative acts, including the reconstituted title and the Reivindicatoria Case decision.

• "The requirements of Republic Act No. 26 must be strictly complied with because 'reconstitution, if made easy, could be the source of anomalous titles. It could also be unscrupulously availed of by some as a convenient substitute for the rigid proceedings involved in original registration of title.'" — This states the rationale for strict compliance with reconstitution requirements, which the Court used to declare the CFI's reconstitution order void.

• "The broader interest of justice as well as the circumstances of the case justifies the relaxation of the rule on res judicata. The Court is not precluded from re-examining its own ruling and rectifying errors of judgment if blind and stubborn adherence to res judicata would involve the sacrifice of justice to technicality." — This articulates the exception to res judicata that the Court invoked to allow the Republic to present the Provincial Voucher despite the finality of the Reivindicatoria Case.

• "Considering that the very document which served as the RTC-Br. 9's basis for determining Mariano's ownership over Lot 937 is void, it follows that the RTC-Br. 9's decision in the Reivindicatoria Case is likewise void." — This is the ratio decidendi connecting the void reconstitution to the void reivindicatoria decision, distinguishing the case from Amoroso vs. Alegre, Jr. where ownership was independently proven.

• Republic vs. Santua, 586 Phil. 291 (2008) — Controlling precedent on the insufficiency of tax declarations, survey plans, and technical descriptions as sources of reconstitution under Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 26. The Court applied its ruling directly to find the CFI's reconstitution void, as the same types of documents were used.

• Spouses Aboitiz vs. Spouses Po, 810 Phil. 123 (2017) — Followed to distinguish an action for cancellation/nullification of title from an action for annulment of judgment, establishing that the RTC has jurisdiction over the former even when it collaterally affects a prior court order.

• Heirs of Procopio Borras vs. Heirs of Eustaquio Borras, G.R. No. 213888, April 25, 2022 — Followed to hold that the proper remedy for assailing a reconstitution order that exceeded the court's jurisdiction is an action for reconveyance, not annulment of judgment under Rule 47, and that grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of jurisdiction does not equate to lack of jurisdiction for purposes of Rule 47.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 428 (1997) — Followed on the principle that courts may take judicial notice of the records of another case in another court involving one of the parties, as official acts of the judicial department.

• Philippine National Bank vs. Daradar, G.R. No. 180203, June 28, 2021 — Quoted with approval on the doctrine that a void judgment can never attain finality and may be slain at sight, applying it to the CFI's reconstitution order.

• Amoroso vs. Alegre, Jr., 552 Phil. 22 (2007) — Distinguished. In Amoroso, ownership in the reivindicatoria action was proven through a Bureau of Lands certification and cadastral list independent of the reconstituted title, so the reivindicatoria action could proceed independently from the reconstitution ruling. In the present case, the reivindicatoria decision relied solely on the void reconstituted title, making it void as well.

• Barnes vs. Padilla, 482 Phil. 903 (2004) — Cited on the relaxation of the immutability of judgments doctrine to serve substantial justice, listing the factors justifying relaxation.

• Aledro-Ruña vs. Lead Export and Agro-Development Corp., 836 Phil. 946 (2018) — Cited on the relaxation of res judicata in favor of substantial justice, where blind adherence would sacrifice justice to technicality.

• Heirs of Isabelo Cudal, Sr. vs. Spouses Suguitan, 880 Phil. 347 (2020) — Cited on the innocent purchaser for value doctrine, specifically the three conditions under which a buyer may rely solely on the face of the Torrens title.

• Duenas vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. 209463, November 29, 2022 — Cited on the requirement that buyers must be continuing purchasers for value and in good faith until registration of the conveyance.

• Section 3, Republic Act No. 26 (Reconstitution Law) — Enumerates the sources from which a transfer certificate of title may be reconstituted, in the following order: (a) owner's duplicate; (b) co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate; (c) certified copy previously issued; (d) deed of transfer on file with the registry of deeds; (e) document on file in the registry of deeds by which the property is mortgaged, leased, or encumbered; and (f) any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis. Applied to find the reconstitution void because the documents used (tax declaration, survey plan, technical description) do not qualify under any paragraph, especially paragraph (f) under the principle of ejusdem generis, and Mariano failed to show efforts to obtain the prior documents.

• Section 15, Republic Act No. 26 — Provides that the court must find that the documents are sufficient and proper, that the petitioner is the registered owner or has an interest, that the certificate of title was in force when lost, and that the description, area, and boundaries are substantially the same. Applied to find that Mariano failed to prove these requisites, as no evidence showed he was the registered owner, that his title was in force when lost, or that it was actually lost or destroyed.

• Section 19, Republic Act No. 26 — Provides that if the lost or destroyed title is subsequently found and is not in the name of the same person in whose favor the reconstituted title was issued, the register of deeds should bring the matter to court for cancellation. The CA applied this provision; the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to discuss in light of its ruling declaring the reconstitution void.

• Section 1, Rule 129, Revised Rules on Evidence — Mandates judicial notice of official acts of the judicial department of the Philippines. Applied to take judicial notice of the Expropriation Case and Reconstitution Case records.

• Section 21, Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence — Defines ancient documents as those more than 30 years old, produced from proper custody, and unblemished by alteration or suspicion, requiring no further evidence of authenticity. Applied to find the Provincial Voucher and Mocion admissible as ancient documents found in the archived Expropriation Case records.

• Section 19, Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence — Classifies documents as public or private; public documents include written official acts of public officers. Applied to find the Provincial Voucher is a public document as a written official act of the CFI's Clerk of Court.

• Section 9(1), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 — Grants RTC exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value exceeds PHP 300,000.00 (outside Metro Manila). Applied to find RTC-Br. 12 had jurisdiction, the assessed value being PHP 3,460,730.00.

• Article 1410, Civil Code — Provides that an action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. Cited by the CA on prescription; the Supreme Court's ruling on the void reconstitution rendered detailed discussion of prescription unnecessary.

• Section 1, Republic Act No. 9443 — Confirms and declares valid existing TCTs and reconstituted certificates of title covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, except when obtained through fraud. The Court found this law inapplicable because it validates titles issued pursuant to sales under Act No. 1120 (Friar Lands Act) lacking the Secretary's approval, not void reconstituted titles from void judicial reconstitution proceedings.

• Section 18, Act No. 1120 (Friar Lands Act) — States that no lease or sale made by the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall be valid until approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Contextualized Republic Act No. 9443 as a curative measure exempting titled portions of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate from this requirement.

Inting, Gaerlan, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concur. No separate concurring opinions were noted.