SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 198543, April 15, 2015
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CESAR C. PASICOLAN AND GREGORIO C. PASICOLAN, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Time and again, trial courts are reminded of their duty to carefully scrutinize the records of the case in determining compliance with the requirements concerning Petitions for Reconstitution of a lost or destroyed Original Certificate of Title (OCT). Extra precaution must be taken “lest they become unwitting accomplices in the reconstitution of questionable titles instead of being instruments in promoting the stability of our land registration system.”1
This Petition for Review on Certiorari2 seeks to reverse the September 6, 2011 Decision3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 84120. The CA’s assailed Decision affirmed the October 8, 2004 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan which, in turn, granted respondents’ Petition for Reconstitution of OCT No. 8450.
Exhibit Description A Decree No. 339880 B Technical Description C Sepia Film Plan D Certification issued by the Registry of Deeds E Certification issued by the Land Registration Authority, Quezon City F Report issued by the Land Registration Authority G Certificate of Publication issued by the National Printing Office H Official Gazette Vol. 99 No. 39 I Official Gazette Vol. 99 No. 40 J Certification issued by the City Secretary, Tuguegarao City K Certification issued by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan L Notice of Appearance of the Solicitor General M Declaration of Real Property dated August 28, 1935 N Declaration of Real Property dated October 24, 1947 O Official Receipt No. 4854586 P Official Receipt No. 6096680 Q Official Receipt No. 34107
WHEREFORE, finding this petition to be sufficient in form and substance and pursuant to the report of the LRA[,] this petition is hereby granted. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Cagayan is hereby directed to reconstitute the original copy of Original Certificate of Title No. 8450 in the name of Pedro Callueng in exactly the same words and figures as the destroyed original copy based on the certified copy of the Decree upon payment of the petitioners of the lawful fees and charges, subject to the encumbrances mentioned in Decree No. 339880 in the absence of evidence showing that the same has already been cancelled, and provided that no certificate of title covering the same parcel of land exists in the office of the Register of Deeds of Cagayan.
Furnish copies of this Decision to the petitioners, the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cagayan, the Land Registration Authority, Quezon City, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and the Solicitor General.
The Register of Deeds of the Province of Cagayan is hereby directed to issue a new owner’s duplicate copy of Original Certificate of Title No. 8450 in the name of Pedro Callueng in lieu of the lost/destroyed one upon payment of the lawful fees and charges.
SO ORDERED.7
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT [RESPONDENTS] FAILED TO PRESENT COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED LOST CERTIFICATE OF TITLE WAS VALID AND SUBSISTING AT THE TIME OF ITS ALLEGED LOSS AND THAT A MERE COPY OF DECREE NO. 339880 IS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR RECONSTITUTING ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 8450.8
2. From Book No. 52 of the ‘Record Book of Cadastral Lots’ on file at the Cadastral Decree Section, this Authority, it appears that Decree No. 339880 was issued for Lot 1921, Tuguegarao Cadastre on September 12, 1928, in Cadastral Case No. 4, GLRO Cad. Record No. 415. However, copy of said decree is no longer available in this Authority;9
We find no reason not to give the LRA’s determination full faith and credit. The OSG ought to remember that: the LRA exists for the sole purpose of implementing and protecting the Torrens system of land titling and registration; it is the central repository of all land records involving registered or titled lands; it keeps the title history or records of transaction involving titled or registered lands x x x and; it is specifically called upon to extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings. x x x
Moreover, We constantly adhere to the established rule that ‘factual findings of administrative officials and agencies that have acquired expertise in the performance of their official duties and the exercise of their primary jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. x x x
What made the case stronger for the appellees was the lower court’s granting of the prayer for the reconstitution and issuance of certificates of title. After a thorough examination of the presented evidence and testimony, pursuant as well on the report made by the LRA, the lower court concluded that the petition was sufficient in substance.
Findings of fact made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by an appellate tribunal and, absent a clear disregard of the evidence before it that can otherwise [a]ffect the results of the case, those findings should not be ignored. In this case, We give great weight on the lower court’s findings of fact as the latter was in a better position to examine the real evidence, and observed whether the witness was telling the truth or not. x x x
Upon the foregoing, We are persuaded to believe and so hold that sufficient basis thus exists to allow the reconstitution and issuance of certificates of title in favor of the appellees. For failure of the OSG to prove otherwise, the Court has no recourse but to deny its appeal.10
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THAT RECONSTITUTION IS JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF A COPY OF AN UNAUTHENTICATED DECREE AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.11
x x x The machine copy of the decree that was attached to the petition for reconstitution itself became the source of a document that was forwarded to the LRA, which document was, in turn, made the basis of a decree that was released by LRA as a certified true copy of its records. Indeed, there is no authentic decree to speak of in the instant case. At best, the certification made by LRA on the decree submitted as Exhibit A merely proves the subsequent appearance thereof in the records of the LRA. But it can never serve to prove its authenticity for purposes of reconstitution under Section 2 (d) of Republic Act No. 26.12
On the question of whether or not respondent is estopped from assailing the decision of the RTC for failure of the OSG, as government representative, to participate in the proceedings before the trial court or to file an opposition to petitioner’s petition for correction of entries in his service records, this Court rules that such an apparent oversight has no bearing on the validity of the appeal which the petitioner filed before the CA. Neither can the State, as represented by the government, be considered in estoppel due to the petitioner’s seeming acquiescence to the judgment of the RTC when it initially made corrections to some of petitioner’s records with the PNP. This Court has reiterated time and again that the absence of opposition from government agencies is of no controlling significance, because the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents. Nor is the Republic barred from assailing the decision granting the petition for correction of entries if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.19
SEC. 2. 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.
ATTY. AGUSTIN: q When you discovered x x x the loss of said title[,] what did you do next? a I tried to secure a copy of the Decree of this title, sir. q Were you able to secure one? a Yes, sir. q I am showing to you a copy of this Decree No. 339880 of lot 1921[,] will you please go over it and tell if this is the one? a That is the same certified xerox copy I have taken from the Land Registration Authority[,] which was already marked as Exhibit A, Sir.26
Section 20. Proof of private document. – Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
Respondents predicate their Petition for Reconstitution on Section 2(f) of RA 26. And to avail of its benefits, respondents presented survey plan, technical description, Certification issued by the Land Registration Authority, Lot Data Computation, and tax declarations. Unfortunately, these pieces of documentary evidence are not similar to those mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (e) of Section 2 of RA 26, which all pertain to documents issued or are on file with the Registry of Deeds. Hence, respondents’ documentary evidence cannot be considered to fall under subparagraph (f). Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned. Thus, in Republic of the Philippines v. Santua, we held that when Section 2(f) of RA 26 speaks of “any other document,” the same must refer to similar documents previously enumerated therein, that is, those mentioned in Sections 2(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).
Also, the survey plan and technical description are not competent and sufficient sources of reconstitution when the petition is based on Section 2(f) of RA 26. They are mere additional documentary requirements. This is the clear import of the last sentence of Section 12, RA 26 earlier quoted. Thus, in Lee v. Republic of the Philippines, where the trial court ordered reconstitution on the basis of the survey plan and technical description, we declared the order of reconstitution void for want of factual support.31
Moreover, the Certification issued by the LRA stating that Decree No. 190622 was issued for Lot 54 means nothing. The Land Registration Act expressly recognizes two classes of decrees in land registration proceedings, namely, (i) decrees dismissing the application and (ii) decrees of confirmation and registration. In the case at bench, we cannot ascertain from said Certification whether the decree alluded to by the respondents granted or denied Julio Ramos’ claim. Moreover, the LRA’s Certification did not state to whom Lot 54 was decreed. Thus, assuming that Decree No. 190622 is a decree of confirmation, it would be too presumptuous to further assume that the same was issued in the name and in favor of Julio Ramos. Furthermore, said Certification did not indicate the number of the original certificate of title and the date said title was issued. In Tahanan Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we held that the absence of any document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title and date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of such petition. 35
q Where is the owner’s copy of this original certificate of title? a It was lost, sir. q Will you plese explain how that owner’s copy of OCT No. 8450 was lost? a The title was in our possession and later on it was lost in our possession. q What happened when you discovered the loss of said title? a We exerted efforts to locate but we were not able to locate the same.40
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 1977 dated April 15, 2015.
1Republic v. Heirs of Julio Ramos, 627 Phil. 123, 128 (2010).
2Rollo, pp. 19-48.
3 CA rollo, pp. 77-84; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario.
4 Records, pp. 52-55; penned by Judge Designate Orlando D. Beltran.
5 Records, pp. 1-13.
6 Id. at 52-55.
7 Id. at 55.
8 CA rollo, p. 23.
9 Id. at 81-82; citations omitted, underscoring in the original.
10 Id. at 82-83; citations omitted, emphases and underscoring in the original.
11Rollo, p. 27.
12 Id. at 31.
13 Section 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having an interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain, among other things, the following: (a) that the owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no co-owner’s mortgagee’s or lessee’s duplicate had been issued, or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed; (c) the location, area and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which do not belong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements; (e) the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and all persons who may have any interest in the property; (f) a detailed description of the encumbrances, if any, affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting the property have been presented for registration, or, if there be any, the registration thereof has not been accomplished, as yet. All the documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in support of the petition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with the same: Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources enumerated in section 2(f) of 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further be accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or with a certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property. Emphasis supplied.
14 An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title Lost or Destroyed.
15Rollo, p. 35.
16 Id. at 150.
17 Id.
18 G.R No. 186610, July 29, 2013, 702 SCRA 496.
19 Id. at 505; Citations omitted, emphasis supplied.
20Republic v. Heirs of Julio Ramos, supra note 1 at 133. Citations omitted.
21 Id. at 133-134.
22 CA rollo, p. 81.
23 Records, p. 40.
24 CA Decision, citing Land Registration Authority, Department of Justice, http://www.lra.gov.ph/index.php?page=about_us_mission, CA rollo, p. 82.
25 Records, pp. 40-41.
26 TSN, September 7, 2004, pp. 5-6; emphasis supplied.
27 Act No. 2347, An Act to Provide for the Reorganization of the Courts of First Instance and of the Court of Land Registration. Chapter 2, Section 21 provides:
SEC. 21. Of the decree. - Immediately after final decision by the court directing the registration of any property, the clerk shall send a certified copy of such decision to the chief of the General Land Registration Office, who shall prepare the decree in accordance with section forty of Act Numbered four hundred and ninety-six, and he shall forward a certified copy of said decree to the register of deeds of the province or city in which the property is situated. The register shall then comply with the duties assigned to him in section forty-one of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six.
28 See Records, p. 49.
29 Republic Act No. 26, Section 2(f).
30 Supra note 1.
31 Id. at 137-138; emphasis supplied, citations omitted.
32 Records, p. 62.
33 Supra note 1.
34 Id. 138-139.
35 Id; emphasis supplied, citations omitted.
36 586 Phil. 291, 299 (2008).
37 Records, p.11.
38 Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In case of loss or theft of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other person in interest and registered.
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this decree.
39 Amending and Codifying the Laws relative to Registration OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
40 TSN, September 7, 2004, pp. 4-5.