Republic of the Philippines vs. Luisa Abellanosa and Generoso Manalo by Fil-Estate Properties, Inc.

A second amended petition for judicial reconstitution of a Torrens title that merely substitutes parties, cites Republic Act No. 26, and uses LRA-verified plans and technical descriptions already available to the court does not require new posting and publication; the RTC retains jurisdiction validly acquired from the original petition, and reconstitution may be based on Section 2(f) of Republic Act No. 26 where the court finds the documents sufficient and proper.

The dispute concerns two parcels of land in Barangay Bocohan, Lucena City, Quezon Province, originally registered in the names of spouses Luisa Abellanosa and Generoso Manalo, who sold them to Marina Valero; Valero later sold Lot No. 1457 to Fil-Estate Properties, Inc., while Lot No. 1249 was developed into a first-class subdivision with FEPI as developer. The owner's duplicate copies of the titles could not be delivered because the Register of Deeds of Lucena City certified on September 16, 2005 that the titles were among those presumed burned during the August 30, 1983 fire that razed the Lucena City Hall. Republic Act No. 26 provides the special procedure for judicial reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title lost or destroyed.

Spouses Luisa Abellanosa and Generoso Manalo claimed they were once registered owners of two parcels of land in Barangay Bocohan, Lucena City, Quezon Province, more particularly described as Lot Nos. 1457 and 1249, with a total land area of 55,086 square meters and covered by Original Certificate of Title Nos. 7001 (963) and 7362, respectively. They sold the subject lots to Marina Valero, for which the corresponding tax declaration was issued under Valero's name. Valero later sold Lot No. 1457 to Fil-Estate Properties, Inc., while Lot No. 1249 was developed into a first-class subdivision with FEPI as the developer. Valero was unable to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of the titles to FEPI because the documents were lost beyond retrieval, as certified on September 16, 2005 by the Register of Deeds of Lucena City, which stated that the titles "are among those presumed burned during the fire that razed the City Hall Building of the City of Lucena on August 30, 1983."

On January 12, 2006, a petition for reconstitution was filed, docketed as M.C. No. 2006-08, entitled "In Re: Petition for Judicial Reconstitution of Original Copies of Original Certificate of Title Nos. 7001 (963) and 7632 and Issuance of New Owners Duplicate Copies Thereof Issued by the Register of Deeds for the Province of Tayabas, Now Registry of Deeds for Lucena City/Luisa Abellanosa and Generoso Manalo by: Fil-Estate Properties, Inc." The petition sought reconstitution of the original copies and issuance of new owner's duplicate copies. On May 17, 2006, respondents sought to amend the petition by attaching the respective sketch plans and technical descriptions of the subject lots. The RTC issued a June 16, 2006 Order acknowledging the amended petition.

The RTC set the petition for hearing and directed posting and publication of notices in the Official Gazette. It summoned Valero and Thaddeus Aquino, as FEPI's representative, to shed light on the issues surrounding the loss of the titles. After respondents offered their exhibits, the Land Registration Authority submitted a report informing the RTC that the plans and technical descriptions of Lots 1457 and 1249, Cad. 112, Lucena Cadastre, were verified correct and approved under LRA PR-08-01602-R and LRA PR-08-01603-R, respectively, pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 26.

On April 28, 2008, counsel for respondents filed a motion to admit a second amended petition to substitute the parties by impleading Valero as co-petitioner following the death of the spouses Manalo and to use the LRA-verified plans and technical descriptions as bases for the reconstitution of the lost titles. The RTC admitted the motion and the second amendment to the petition in an Order dated May 5, 2008.

In its May 27, 2008 Order, the RTC found merit in the petition for reconstitution. It ordered the Register of Deeds of Lucena City, upon payment of the prescribed fees, to reconstitute OCT Nos. 7001 (963) and 7632 registered in the names of Luisa Abellanosa and Generoso Manalo, respectively, in accordance with the LRA Report and Recommendation, using the plans and technical descriptions of Lots 1457 and 1249 as the source of reconstitution under Section 2(f) of Republic Act No. 26. The reconstituted titles were ordered subject to such encumbrances as may be subsisting and to the condition that no certificate of title covering the same parcels of land exists in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Lucena City; after reconstitution, second owner's duplicate copies were to be issued in lieu of the first ones lost.

• Jurisdiction and Publication: Petitioner argued that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the second amended petition contained substantial changes and annexes that were not attached to the first amendment, and the second amended petition was not posted and published in accordance with Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26.
• Sufficiency of Reconstitution Basis: Petitioner contended that there was no sufficient basis for the reconstitution of the titles because the grounds indicated in the second amendment, such as plans and technical descriptions, are not grounds for filing a petition for reconstitution.
• Issuance of Second Owner's Duplicate: Petitioner asserted that the RTC erred in granting the prayer for the issuance of a second owner's duplicate of title.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the second amended petition not being posted and published under Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26.
• Sufficiency of Basis: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there was sufficient basis for reconstitution, particularly from the plans and technical descriptions under Section 2(f) of Republic Act No. 26.

• Jurisdiction: No. The RTC validly acquired jurisdiction; the second amendment's revisions were minor and did not affect the nature of the in rem action, so the earlier posting and publication sufficed, and jurisdiction once acquired is not lost.
• Sufficiency of Basis: No. Section 2(f) of Republic Act No. 26 permits reconstitution from any other document which, in the court's judgment, is sufficient and proper; the RTC considered the second amendment, original petition, and supporting documents collectively, including the LRA-verified plans and technical descriptions and other official documents.

• Jurisdiction: Republic Act No. 26, Sections 12 and 13, require the petition for reconstitution to be filed by the registered owner, assigns, or any person having an interest in the property, and the court to cause notice of the petition to be published twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal or city building where the land is situated at least thirty days prior to the hearing, and sent by registered mail or otherwise to every person named therein whose address is known. Reconstitution is an action in rem, directed not only against particular persons but against the thing itself; the essence of posting and publication is to give notice to the whole world that the petition has been filed and that interested parties may intervene or oppose. The second amendment's main revisions were the substitution of Marina Valero as co-petitioner due to the deaths of the spouses Manalo, the mention of Republic Act No. 26 as the applicable law, and the use of the LRA-verified plans and technical descriptions as bases for reconstitution. These did not affect the nature of the action and were minor matters that merely assisted and guided the RTC. The earlier posting and publication of the original petition, together with notices on the first and second amendments served upon parties in interest, achieved the purpose of giving notice. Even assuming arguendo that another posting and publication was necessary, its absence did not divest the RTC of jurisdiction validly acquired in the first instance, because jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. Moreover, the technical descriptions in the blueprints and other documents were already available for the court to scrutinize during the first amendment, so no new posting and publication was required.
• Sufficiency of Basis: Section 2 of Republic Act No. 26 enumerates the acceptable sources for judicial reconstitution of an existing and valid original certificate of Torrens title, in the following order: (a) the owner's duplicate; (b) the co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate; (c) a certified copy previously issued by the register of deeds or legal custodian; (d) an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent; (e) a document on file in the registry of deeds by which the property is mortgaged, leased, or encumbered, or an authenticated copy showing registration; 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. Section 12 further provides that if reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources under Section 2(f) or 3(f), the petition must be accompanied by a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or by a certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property. In this case, the LRA verified that the plans and technical descriptions of Lots 1457 and 1249 were correct and approved them under LRA PR-08-01602-R and LRA PR-08-01603-R pursuant to Section 12. The RTC considered the contents of the second amendment and the original petition, along with their respective supporting documents, collectively; thus, the bases for reconstitution were not only the plans and technical descriptions but also the legible duplicate copies of the titles and a host of other official documents. The Court also cited the requisites in Sebastian vs. Spouses Cruz for an order of reconstitution to issue: (a) the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution; (c) the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had 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 of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title. On the record, there was sufficient basis for the RTC to grant the petition for reconstitution.

• Judicial Reconstitution of a Torrens Title under Republic Act No. 26 — Judicial reconstitution means the restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed Torrens certificate attesting the title of a person to registered land. Its purpose is to enable, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the reproduction of the lost or destroyed Torrens certificate in the same form and in exactly the same way it was at the time of the loss or destruction. The Court applied this definition in affirming the RTC's order to reconstitute the lost original certificates of title.
• Requisites for an Order of Reconstitution (Sebastian vs. Spouses Cruz) — The requisites are: (a) the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution; (c) the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had 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 of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title. The Court cited these requisites in upholding the RTC's grant of the petition.
• Acceptable Bases under Section 2, Republic Act No. 26 — Original certificates of title may be reconstituted from the sources enumerated in Section 2, in the following order: (a) owner's duplicate; (b) co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate; (c) certified copy previously issued by the register of deeds or legal custodian; (d) authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent; (e) document on file in the registry of deeds by which the property is mortgaged, leased, or encumbered, or an authenticated copy showing registration; 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. Section 12 adds that if reconstitution is to be made exclusively from Section 2(f) or 3(f), the petition must be accompanied by a plan and technical description duly approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or by a certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property. The Court applied Section 2(f) to uphold the use of LRA-verified plans and technical descriptions, together with other official documents.
• Reconstitution as an Action in Rem — Reconstitution of title is an action in rem, directed not only against particular persons but against the thing itself. The essence of posting and publication is to give notice to the whole world that the petition has been filed and that interested parties may intervene or oppose. The Court found this purpose achieved by the posting and publication of the original petition and the notices served on parties in interest.
• Jurisdiction Once Acquired Is Not Lost — Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. The Court applied this rule in holding that even if another posting and publication were necessary for the second amendment, the RTC would not be divested of jurisdiction it had validly acquired.
• Minor Amendments and Publication — A second amended petition that merely substitutes parties, cites the applicable law, and uses documents already available to the court does not affect the nature of the action and does not necessitate another posting and publication. The Court applied this principle to the second amended petition for reconstitution.

• "[T]he judicial reconstitution of a Torrens title under Republic Act No. 26 means the restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed Torrens certificate attesting the title of a person to registered land. The purpose of the reconstitution is to enable, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the reproduction of the lost or destroyed Torrens certificate in the same form and in exactly the same way it was at the time of the loss or destruction." — This passage defines judicial reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 and states the rationale for the remedy, anchoring the Court's affirmance of the RTC's order.
• "The essence of posting and publication is to give notice to the whole world that such petition has been filed and that interested parties may intervene or oppose in the case." — This passage explains the purpose of posting and publication in a reconstitution proceeding and supports the holding that the original publication sufficiently served that purpose despite the second amendment.
• "Settled is the rule that jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated." — This passage supplies the alternative ground for rejecting the Republic's jurisdictional challenge, even assuming another posting and publication was required.
• "Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title." — This is the Section 2(f) source under Republic Act No. 26, which the Court invoked to uphold the use of the LRA-verified plans and technical descriptions and other documents as bases for reconstitution.

• Republic vs. Mancao, 764 Phil. 523 (2015) — Cited for the definition and purpose of judicial reconstitution of a Torrens title under Republic Act No. 26, which the Court quoted and applied.
• Sebastian vs. Spouses Cruz, 807 Phil. 738, 744 (2017) — Cited for the requisites that must be complied with for an order of reconstitution to be issued.
• Flores vs. Montemayor, 666 Phil. 393, 402 (2011) — Cited for the rule that jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated; the decision also cites Office of the Ombudsman vs. Estandarte, 549 Phil. 664 (2007), and Deltaventures Resources, Inc. vs. Hon. Cabato, 384 Phil. 252, 261 (2000), in support of the same rule.
• Muñoz vs. Yabut, Jr., 665 Phil. 488, 514 (2011) — Cited for the principle that reconstitution of title is an action in rem, directed not only against particular persons but against the thing itself.

• Section 2, Republic Act No. 26 — Enumerates the sources from which original certificates of title may be reconstituted, in order, including Section 2(f), which allows any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title. The Court applied Section 2(f) to uphold the use of the LRA-verified plans and technical descriptions, together with other official documents, as bases for reconstitution.
• Section 12, Republic Act No. 26 — Prescribes the contents of the petition for reconstitution and provides that if reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources under Section 2(f) or 3(f), the petition must be accompanied by a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or by a certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property. The Court noted that the LRA verified and approved the plans and technical descriptions under LRA PR-08-01602-R and LRA PR-08-01603-R pursuant to this section.
• Section 13, Republic Act No. 26 — Requires the court to cause notice of the petition to be published twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal or city building where the land is situated at least thirty days prior to the hearing, and sent by registered mail or otherwise to every person named therein whose address is known. The Court applied this provision in holding that the original posting and publication sufficed and that the second amendment did not require another posting and publication.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The procedural vehicle for the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Republic. The Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA's decision and resolution.

Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Inting, J. Lopez, and Dimaampao, JJ., concur. J. Lopez was designated as an additional Member per raffle dated September 2021 vice J. Gaerlan, who recused due to prior action in the Court of Appeals.