Republic vs. Fule

A petition for judicial reconstitution of a lost or destroyed Original Certificate of Title under Republic Act No. 26 requires clear and convincing evidence that the specific title was actually issued pursuant to a decree of registration and subsequently lost or destroyed; a decree of registration alone, without proof of the title number and date of issuance, is insufficient to establish prior existence.

Spouses Juan and Delia Fule sought reconstitution of OCT No. T-1929(464) covering Lot 1204 in Lucena City, allegedly registered in the name of Isabel Zarsadias pursuant to Decree No. 130359 issued by the Court of First Instance of Tayabas on 5 December 1922. The title was presumed destroyed in a fire that razed the Lucena City Hall on 30 August 1983. Respondents claimed ownership through an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale executed in 2011 by the grandchildren and successors-in-interest of Isabel Zarsadias.

• The Petition for Reconstitution: On 28 June 2012, respondents spouses Juan and Delia Fule filed a petition before the RTC of Lucena City for reconstitution of OCT No. T-1929(464) covering Lot 1204 (2,628 square meters) of the Cadastral Survey of Lucena. They alleged that the title was issued in the name of Isabel Zarsadias based on Decree No. 130359 dated 5 December 1922; that Zarsadias died on 12 May 1924; that the original owner's copy was kept by her eldest son Antonio Zarsadias Pabillorin until his death on 3 July 1983; that Antonio's daughter Dorotea Pabillorin executed an Affidavit of Loss on 25 July 2011 stating the documents were irretrievably lost; and that respondents acquired the property through an Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed of Absolute Sale executed on 25 July 2011 by Zarsadias's grandchildren.
• Evidence Presented: Respondents submitted: (1) a Certified Microfilm Copy of Decree No. 130359 issued by the Land Registration Office; (2) Certifications dated 10 June 2011 and 20 June 2012 from the Register of Deeds of Lucena City stating that OCT No. T-1929(464) was among titles presumed burned in the fire of 30 August 1983 and that no second owner's duplicate had been issued; (3) Tax Declaration No. 95-025-00293 in the name of Isabel Zarsadias; and (4) LRA Report dated 8 January 2013 confirming Decree No. 130359 was issued for Lot 1204 in favor of Isabel Zarsadias and verifying the technical description.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC granted the petition on 11 February 2015, finding respondents proved the existence and loss of the title. The Republic appealed, arguing respondents failed to establish that OCT No. T-1929(464) was actually issued. The CA affirmed on 22 September 2017, ruling that the requirements of Sections 12 and 13 of RA No. 26 were complied with and that the Register of Deeds' Certification established a ground to presume the title was burned in the 1983 fire.

• Insufficient Evidence of Prior Existence: The OSG contended that the CA erred in affirming the reconstitution order because respondents failed to establish that OCT No. T-1929(464) was actually issued pursuant to Decree No. 130359. The decree merely ordered registration but did not cite the specific title number or confirm that an OCT was issued.
• Inadequate Certification: The Certification from the Register of Deeds only established a presumption that the title was burned in the 1983 fire, not that it actually existed in the registry records. The certification merely indicated the office had no record of the title, which was insufficient to prove prior existence.
• Tax Declaration Weight: The tax declaration presented was not a reliable source to prove the existence of the specific certificate of title, as tax declarations are merely prima facie evidence of claim of ownership, not of title.

• Procedural Defects: Respondents argued the petition raised questions of fact regarding the sufficiency of evidence, which are beyond the scope of Rule 45. They also claimed petitioner failed to attach material portions of the record, including the certified microfilm of Decree No. 130359 and the Register of Deeds Certification.
• Substantive Compliance: Respondents maintained they presented sufficient evidence of the title's existence. The Register of Deeds' Certification, based on records on file, confirmed the title was presumed burned. This was corroborated by the certified microfilm of Decree No. 130359, the LRA Report, and testimonial evidence. Respondents cited Republic v. Dela Raga to support the proposition that a certification of presumptive loss suffices for reconstitution.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the CA erred in affirming the grant of reconstitution based on evidence that failed to establish the prior existence of OCT No. T-1929(464) and its loss or destruction.
• Legal Standard for Reconstitution: Whether a decree of registration, standing alone, satisfies the condition precedent that an Original Certificate of Title was actually issued.

• Condition Precedent Not Met: Reconstitution requires proof that an OCT was actually issued and subsequently lost or destroyed. The evidence presented failed to satisfy this condition precedent. Decree No. 130359 merely ordered registration of Lot 1204 in the name of Isabel Zarsadias; it did not indicate that OCT No. T-1929(464) was issued pursuant thereto, nor did it cite the title number or date of issuance. A decree of registration requires a subsequent act of registration to bring the lot under the Torrens System and effect issuance of a certificate of title.
• Certification Insufficient: The Register of Deeds' Certification only established a presumption that the title was among those burned in the 1983 fire. It did not confirm in definite terms that OCT No. T-1929(464) actually existed and formed part of the registry records. The presumption of loss does not substitute for proof of prior existence.
• LRA Report Limitations: The LRA Report merely verified the existence of Decree No. 130359 and the technical description of the lot. It did not indicate that an OCT was issued pursuant to the decree, nor did it provide the title number or date of issuance.
• Distinction from Dela Raga: Republic v. Dela Raga was distinguishable because the respondent therein presented a pre-war inventory of original certificates proving the subject OCT existed in the registry records before its destruction during World War II. Respondents herein presented no such documentary evidence proving the title's existence in the registry.
• Tax Declaration Inadequacy: Tax declarations constitute prima facie evidence of claim of ownership but are insufficient to establish the existence of a certificate of title for reconstitution purposes, as reconstitution does not adjudicate ownership but merely determines whether re-issuance of the title is proper.

• Prior Existence Requirement for Reconstitution: Judicial reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate of title under Republic Act No. 26 requires clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the specific certificate of title was actually issued pursuant to a decree of registration; and (2) it was subsequently lost or destroyed. The burden extends beyond proving the decree to proving the actual issuance of the title with specific number and date. The absence of any document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title and the date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of such petition.
• Hierarchy of Sources under Section 2 of RA No. 26: Reconstitution must proceed from sources enumerated in the following order: (a) owner's duplicate; (b) co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate; (c) certified copy of the certificate of title; (d) authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent; (e) mortgage/lease documents on file; and (f) any other sufficient document. A decree of registration (source d) requires corroborating evidence of actual title issuance; it cannot stand alone where no other document establishes the title number and date of issuance.
• Presumption vs. Proof of Existence: A certification from the Register of Deeds that a title is "presumed lost or destroyed" establishes only the fact of loss, not the prior existence of the title in the registry records. The presumption of loss arising from fire or other calamity does not substitute for proof that the title was actually issued, entered in the registration book, and formed part of the official records.

• "The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land. The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction occurred."
• "Decree No. 130359 merely ordered for the registration of Lot 1204 in the name of Isabel Zarsadias. That means there is still an act of registration to follow or to be complied with to bring the subject lot under the provisions of the Torrens System and, consequently, the issuance of a certificate of title."
• "Certainly, the certification of said Register of Deeds that the subject certificate of title 'is one among those titles presumed burned during the fire that razed the City Hall building of the City of Lucena' does not necessarily mean that OCT No. T-1929(464) once formed part of its records."
• "A tax declaration can only be prima facie evidence of claim of ownership, which, however, is not the issue in a reconstitution proceeding. A reconstitution of title does not pass upon the ownership of land covered by the lost or destroyed title but merely determines whether a re-issuance of such title is proper."

• Republic v. Heirs of Ramos, 627 Phil. 123 (2010): Followed for the rule that the absence of any document mentioning the number of the certificate of title and date when issued does not warrant granting a reconstitution petition.
• Tahanan Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 203 Phil. 652 (1982): Cited in Ramos regarding the necessity of proving the title number and date of issuance.
• Republic v. Dela Raga, 613 Phil. 257 (2009): Distinguished; while upholding reconstitution based on a certification of presumptive loss, the Court there relied on additional evidence (pre-war inventory) proving the title's existence in official records.
• Republic v. Santua, 586 Phil. 291 (2008): Followed for the principle that tax declarations are prima facie evidence of ownership but insufficient for reconstitution.
• Republic v. Heirs of Sanchez, 749 Phil. 999 (2014): Cited for the alternative remedy of Petition for Cancellation and Re-issuance of a Decree of Registration where the decree has not yet been entered in the Registration Book.

• Section 2, Republic Act No. 26: Enumerates the exclusive sources from which reconstitution of an Original Certificate of Title may be based, in hierarchical order.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court: Governs petitions for review on certiorari; the Court held that the petition raised pure questions of law regarding the sufficiency of evidence to support legal conclusions, not questions of fact.

Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Inting, JJ.