LAND TITLES & DEEDS: RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE

A. RECONSTITUTION OF LOST OR DESTROYED ORIGINAL COPIES OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE RECONSTITUTION the restoration of the instrument, which is supposed to have been lost/destroyed in its original form and condition under the custody of Register of Deeds. PURPOSE: to have the same reproduced, after proper proceedings, in the same form they were when the loss/destruction occurred. KINDS OF RECONSTITUTION: 1) JUDICIAL partakes of a land registration proceeding and is perforce a proceeding in rem. 2) ADMINISTRATIVE may be availed of only in case of: a. substantial loss or destruction of the original land titles due to fire, flood, or other force majeure (as determined by the administrator of the Land Registration Authority. b. the number of certificates of title lost or damaged should be at least 10% of the total number in the possession of the office of the Register of Deeds. c. in no case shall the number of certificates of title lost or damaged be less than 500 d. petitioner must have the duplicate copy of the certificate of title. NOTE: The law provides for retroactive application thereof to cases 15 years immediately preceding 1989 WHEN THE DUPLICATE TITLE OF LANDOWNER IS LOST: the proper petition is not reconstitution, but one filed with the court for ISSUANCE OF NEW TITLE in lieu of the lost copy RECONSTITUTED TITLE IS VOID: if the original is not really lost but only in the possession of another person

a. Owners duplicate of the certificate of title b. Co-owners/mortgagees/lessees duplicate of said title c. Authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent (as the case may be) d. Deed or mortgage, lease or encumbrance containing a description of property covered by the certificate of title and on file with the Registry of Deeds (or an authenticated copy thereof) e. Any other copy of the document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstitution. 2) FOR TCT a. Same as (a), (b), and (c) for OCT b. Deed of transfer or other document containing a description of property covered by TCT and on file with the Registry of Deeds (or an authenticated copy thereof) c. Same as (e) and (f) for OCT RULE ON AVAILMENT OF ANY OTHER DOCUMENT DEEMED PROPER AND SUFFICIENT it must refer to similar documents previously enumerated. And the documents alluded to must be resorted to in the absence of those preceding in order. Failure to secure such prior documents (but not able to find them) engenders doubt about the existence of the alleged title itself. 2) PUBLICATION OF NOTICE AND POSTING (at least 30 days before the hearing) a. published in 2 successive issue of the Official Gazette at the expense of petitioner b. must be posted at the main entrances of the provincial building and of the municipal hall of the municipality/city where the property lies. c. sent by registered mail (or otherwise) at the expense of petitioner to every person named n the notice NOTICE MUST STATE THE FOLLOWING:

B. REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES IN PETITIONS FOR JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION 1) SOURCES FOR JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION 1) FOR OCT (in the following order):

a. number of certificate of title b. name of the registered owner/s c. name of interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title

d. location of the property e. date on which all persons having an interest in the property, must appear and file such claims as they may have. NOTE: There is no requirement that notice must be sent to owners of adjoining lots. The publication of the notice in a local newspaper is not required Proceedings being in rem, the court acquires jurisdiction upon compliance with posting and publication of notices Non-compliance with such mandatory requirements renders the proceedings therein void, and the reconstituted title decreed and issued thereby likewise void.

with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority (or with a certified copy of the description from a prior certificate of title covering the same property) 4) WHO MAY FILE PETITION a. registered owner b. his assigns c. any other person who has an interest in the property covered by the certificate sought to be reconstituted NOTE: the Register of Deeds is not a proper party to file DUTY OF THE COURTS TO PROCEED WITH EXTREME CAUTION these proceedings have oftentimes been misused, so the courts must proceed with extreme caution requiring not only strict compliance with the provisions of the law but also ascertaining the identity and authority of every person who files a petition for reconstitution of title (i.e., make sure that indispensable parties are duly served with actual and personal notice of petition) BASIC REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLY WITH: 1) The petitioner is the registered owner 2) The certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed 3) The evidence presented is sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution the court, even without opposition by the Government, must convince itself that the petitioners evidence is substantial enough ORDER/JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL: after lapse of 15 days from receipt by Register of Deeds concerned and by the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority of a notice of such judgment/order without an appeal having been filed by said officials RECONSTITUTION PROCEEDINGS BECOME ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY: when the original of certificate of title sought to be reconstituted was never lost, and the existing certificate is on file and available in the Registry of Deeds. Court must then deny petition. WRONGLY RECONSTITUTED CERTIFICATE OF TITLE: if secured through fraud and misrepresentation, cannot be the source of legitimate rights and benefits.

3) CONTENTS OF PETITION a. that the owners duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed b. that no coowners/mortgagors/lessees duplicate had been issued 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: 1. occupants or persons in possession of the property, 2. owners of the adjoining properties 3. all persons who may have any interest in the property f. a detailed description of the encumbrance, if any, affecting the property 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 documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in support of petition, shall be attached thereto and filed with the same. IF THE SOURCE IS ANY OTHER DOCUMENT: the petition shall also be accompanied

C. REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES IN PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION 1) SOURCES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION a. owners duplicate of the certificate of title b. co-owners/mortgagees/lessees duplicate of said certificate of title 2) WHO MAY FILE PETITION a. registered owner b. his assigns, or c. other persons, both natural and juridical, having an interest in the property 3) CONTENTS OF PETITION a. petitioners full name, address, and other personal circumstances, b. the nature of his interest in the property, and c. title number of the certificate of title sought to be reconstituted title must be VERIFIED, accompanied by the SOURCE/S for reconstitution and an AFFIDAVIT of the registered owner THE AFFIDAVIT MUST STATE THE FOLLOWING: a. That no deed or other instrument affecting the property had been presented for registration, or, if there be any, the nature thereof, the date of its presentation, as well as the names of the parties, and whether the registration of such deed or instrument is still pending accomplishment b. That the owners duplicate certificate or co-owners duplicate is in due form without any apparent intentional alterations or erasures c. That the certificate of title is not the subject of litigation or investigation, administrative or judicial, regarding it genuineness or due execution or issuance d. That the certificate of title was in full force and effect at the time it was lost or destroyed e. That the certificate of title is covered by a declaration regularly issued by the Assessors Office, and

f. That real estate taxes have been fully paid up to at least 2 years prios to the filing of the petition. IF THE RECONSTITUTION IS TO BE MADE FROM ANY OF THE SOURCES ENUMERATED: the affidavit should further state that the owners duplicate has been lost or destroyed and the circumstances under which it was lost or destroyed. 4) WHERE TO FILE PETITION - The REGISTER OF DEEDS concerned 5) REVIEW OF DECISION LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATOR: may review, revise, reverse, modify, nullify or affirm the decision of the Register of Deeds appeal must be filed within 15 days from receipt of judgment/order LRAs function is adjudicatory in nature, so it can properly deliberate on the validity of the titles submitted for reconstitution. Logically, it can declare it as sham or spurious, or valid on its face. if the LRAs findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, it shall be binding on the COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS petition for review of LRA decision REGIONAL TRIAL COURT petition to set aside the decision/order on ground of FAME must be verified and filed within 60 days after petition learns of the decision (but not more than 6 months from promulgation thereof) JURISPRUDENCE MANOTOK IV v HEIRS OF BARQUE The case involves consolidated PETITIONS FOR REVIEW (Rule 45): a. CA 2nd DIVISION ordering RD of QC to cancel Manotoks TCT and directing LRA to reconstitute Barques TCT, b. CA 3rd DIVISION directing RD of QC to cancel Manotoks TCT and LRA to reconstitute Barques TCT. FACTS: The heirs of Homer Barque filed a petition with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of the original copy of the TCT issued in Barques name, which was destroyed by fire that gutted Quezon City Hall, including the Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, in 1988. In support of the petition, they

submitted the owners duplicate copy of TCT, real estate tax receipts, tax declarations and the plan covering the property. Upon notification, the Manotoks filed their opposition claiming that the lot covered by the title under reconstitution forms part of the land covered by their reconstituted title. They alleged that the Barques TCT is spurious. Atty. Bustos, the reconstituting officer, denied the reconstitution on the grounds that the property in question is registered in the name of the Manotoks and that the plan submitted by the Barques is spurious. LRA reversed the decision and ruled that the reconstituting officer should not have required the submission of documents other than the owners duplicate TCT as bases in denying the petition. Based on evidence, LRA also ruled that the TCT and the plan submitted by the Barques were authentic and valid. In fact, it was the Manotoks title that was fraudulently reconstituted. Notwithstanding its conclusion, LRA noted that it is only the RTC that can declare that the same was indeed fraudulently reconstituted. Barques title may only be reconstituted after a judicial declaration that Manotoks title was void and should be canceled. PETITION FOR REVIEW IN CA 2ND DIVISION: The Barques prayed that the LRA be directed to immediately reconstitute their TCT without being subjected to the condition that the Manotoks TCT must first be canceled by a court of competent jurisdiction. LRA Resolution was affirmed in toto. After MR, CA amended decision and directed RD to cancel the Manotok TCT and LRA to reconstitute Barque TCT. PETITION FOR REVIEW IN CA 3RD DIVISION: LRA Resolution was affirmed. It declared that LRA correctly deferred in giving due course to petition for reconstitution since there is yet no final judgment upholding/annulling the Manotok TCT. MR was granted and CA ordered RD to cancel Manotok TCT and direct LRA to reconstitute Barque TCT. ISSUE: 1) Whether or not LRA was correct in stating that reconstituting officer should have confined himself to the owners duplicate certificate of title prior to reconstitution 2) Whether or not the LRA has the authority to annul the Manotok title.

3) Whether or not the reconstitution of the Barque TCT is a collateral attack on the Manotoks existing title. HELD: 1) YES, the LRA properly ruled that the reconstituting officer should have confined himself to the owners duplicate certificate of title. SEC 3 OF RA 26 enumerated the hierarchy of sources to be used as basis for reconstitution. The first in the hierarchy is the owners duplicate of certificate of title. The law states that if this is used as the source (which is in the case of the Barques), there is no need to require the submission of the plan, much less deny the petition on the ground that the submitted plan appears to be spurious. It is the intent of the law to give more weight and preference to the owners duplicate certificate of title over the other enumerated sources. 2) YES, LRA has the authority to annul the Manotok title. It is no longer necessary to remand the case to RTC for the determination of which title is valid or spurious. LRA has the jurisdiction to act on petitions for administrative reconstitution. It has the authority to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal the decision of the reconstituting officer. The function is adjudicatory in natureit can properly deliberate on the validity of the titles submitted for reconstitution. Furthermore, it would be needlessly circuitous to remand the case to the RTC to determine anew which of the two titles is sham or spurious and thereafter appeal the trial courts ruling to the CA. After all, LRA and the two divisions of the appellate court have already declared that Manotoks title is forged. 3) NO, the reconstitution would not constitute a collateral attack on the Manotok title which was irregularly and illegally issued on the first place. The rule that a title issued under the Torrens System is presumed valid and, hence, is the best proof of ownership of a piece of land does not apply where the certificate itself is faulty as to its purported origin. The Court has ruled that wrongly reconstituted certificates of title secured through fraud and misrepresentation cannot be the source of legitimate rights and benefits.

AYN RUTH NOTES