Republic v. Spouses Jovito

 

Republic v. Spouses Jovito

G.R. No. 214223

January 10, 2023

 

FACTS:

                Spouses Jovito allege that they purchased a 345-square meter parcel of land situated in Carcar City Cebu from the parents of their co-respondent Kathleen Bercede. It was then bought by the parents of Bercede from Lourdes Paraz, Bercede’s grandmother. Lourdes acquired such property from the heirs of the original owners, the spouses Teofisto Alesna and Faustina Esmena by way of an extra[1]judicial settlement of the estate of the spouses. Meanwhile, the parcel of land is still registered in the names of Teofisto and Faustina. Spouses Jovito claim in their prayer for reconstitution of the OCT that the original copy of the title as well as the owner’s duplicate have both been lost and destroyed. Respondent spouses filed several pieces of evidence which proved that the title still belonged to Teofisto and Faustina. Petitioner sought to dismiss the petition for reconstitution for not following the mandatory requirements of RA No. 26. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondent spouses and directed the Register of Deeds of Cebu to reconstitute the original copy of the OCT and furnish the respondents a copy. The CA affirmed such decision of the trial court.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the RTC Judgment which directed the reconstitution.

 

HELD:

                No. The CA was incorrect in affirming the RTC Judgment. According to Section 2 of RA 26, “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 (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.” In the case at bar, the respondent spouses have failed to secure or find the documents mentioned under Section 2 of RA No. 26. Without such documents to prove the lost or destroyed title, the reconstitution cannot be done.