G.R. No.

195726

MARCELINO DELA PAZ, Petitioner

DECISION

MARTIRES, J.:

Before this Court is a Rule 45 petition  assailing the 4 October 2010 Decision  and the 17 February
1 2

2011 Resolution  of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 91196 which reversed the
3

Order  of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 220 of Quezon City (RTC), to reconstitute Transfer
4

Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 206714.

THE FACTS

On 5 June 2007, Marcelino Dela Paz (Marcelino) filed a verified petition for reconstitution of TCT No.
206714 covering a parcel of land described as follows:

A parcel of land (Lot 457-A-12-B-2-B-2-A) of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-2114428, being a
partion of Lot 457-A-12-B-2-B-2 (LRC) Psd-1774344 L.R.C. Record No. 3563, situated in Barrio of
Bagbag, Quezon City, Island of Luzon. Bounded on the N. points 2 to 3 by existing road 8 m. wide;
on the E. and S. points 3 to 4 and 4 to 1 by Lot 457-A-12-B-2-B-1 (LRC) Psd-177344. Beginning at a
point marked "l" on plan beginning 50 deg. 50'E., 457.01 m. from L.W. 22, Piedad Estate; thence N.
22 deg. 40'3., 28.02 m. to point 2; thence N. 85 deg. 54'3., 15.00 m. to point 3; thence S. 1 deg.
57'W., 25.06 m. to point 4; thence S. 85 deg. 54'W., 24.97 m. to the point of beginning; containing an
area of FIVE HUNDRED (500) SQUARE METERS more or less.  x x x 5

This parcel of land was the subject of an extra judicial settlement dated 23 October 2000 among the
heirs of Luz Dela Paz, namely: Franklin S. Bortado, Sr., Franklin P. Bortado, Jr., and Marylou
Bortado. Thereafter, Marcelino and his mother, Jenny Rose Dela Paz, bought the subject land on 23
November 2005.

Based on the petition for reconstitution, the original copy of TCT No. 206714 was destroyed by fire
that razed the Quezon City Hall building on 11 June 1988, thus, the owner's duplicate copy was lost
as evidenced by the affidavit of loss duly registered and recorded with the Registry of Deeds of
Quezon City. Marcelino submitted the following as evidence: (1) a photocopy of TCT No. 206714; (2)
real property tax declarations; (3) receipts of payments of real property tax; and (4) the land's sketch
plan and subdivision plan.

Marcelino likewise submitted a Land Registration Authority (LRA) report stating that the plan and
technical description of the property may be used as basis for the inscription of the technical
description on the reconstituted title. In addition, Marcelino submitted a certified microfilm copy of the
plan and a technical description of the property on file with the LRA, which he claimed to be a valid
basis and reference for reconstitution. Marcelino believed that these documents corroborate the
other documentary evidence covering the subject property.

After considering the evidence presented, the RTC granted the petition and ordered the
reconstitution of TCT No. 206714 based on the approved subdivision plan and technical description
submitted. The RTC said:
The [c]ourt, after considering the evidence presented, finds that this is a proper case for the judicial
reconstitution of the original and owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 206714 of
the Register of Deeds of Quezon City based on the approved subdivision plan and technical
description of the subject property.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED.

The Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby ordered to reconstitute the original copy of TCT No.
206714 in the name of Luz Dela Paz and to issue second owner's duplicate copy of the title to the
petitioner Marcelino Dela Paz, based on the approved subdivision plan and technical description
which may be used as basis for the inscription of the technical description of the reconstituted
certificate, provided that the reconstituted title should be made subject to such encumbrance as may
be subsisting, and provided further, that no certificate of title exists in the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City. 6

The Assailed CA Rulings

When the case was elevated before the CA, the RTC's decision was reversed and set aside, and the
petition for reconstitution was dismissed. The CA was not convinced that the evidence adduced in
support of the petition for reconsideration was enough. It held:

First. The heirs of Luz Dela Paz, who allegedly · executed the Extrajudicial Settlement and Deed of
Absolute Sale relative to the subject property covered by TCT No. 206714 were not presented in
court to acknowledge the same. The contract of sale was not even registered with the Register of
Deeds as required under Section 3 of R.A. No. 26 for it to become a credible basis for the granting of
[Marcelino]'s cause.

Second W[e] observe that the Certification issued by the Quezon City Registry of Deeds relative to
the alleged loss of the original of TCT No. 206714 due to fire that razed the City Hall on June 11,
1988 was a form document as the name of Luz Dela Paz and the number of the TCT were merely
entered on the blanks therein provided.

Further, it cannot be deduced from the wordings of the said certification that TCT No. 206714 was
actually issued and registered under Luz Dela Paz. It states that "x x x the original of TCT No.
206714 allegedly registered under the name of Luz P. Dela Paz was/were not included among those
saved titles during the fire that razed the Quezon City Hall Building last June 11, 1988 x x
x." Furthermore, it could hardly be concluded therefrom that TCT No. 206714 was indeed part of the
Registry's, record. Although it was mentioned therein that TCT No. 204714 was not among those
salvaged files during the fire incident, it does not necessarily follow that this document was among
those records on file with the Quezon City Registry of Deeds.

Third. It should be remembered that the original TCT No. 206714 was allegedly destroyed during the
June 11, 1988 fire incident. The owner's duplicate copy was alleged! y lost in 200 I. From 1988 to
200 I, the heirs of Luz Dela Paz did not bother to file a petition for the reconstitution of the damaged
TCT. They even failed to execute an affidavit concerning the loss of their copy in 2001 when at that
time they were the alleged owners and presumably in possession of said property. It was only when
the subject lot was transferred to [Marcelino] and his mother Jenny Rose Dela Paz on November 23,
2005 that said affidavit was made at [Marcelino]'s instance. In said document, he failed to explain the
surrounding circumstances how said copy was lost. He just made a general statement therein that
the duplicate original copy "got lost and could no longer be located despite diligent effort to locate
the same." Inexplicably, the extant petition was filed only in 2007 or nineteen (19) years from the
copy's destruction in 1988.
Fourth. The tax declaration and tax receipt presented cannot likewise be valid bases for
reconstitution as these documents are issued for tax purposes only. Besides, a tax declaration is not
a reliable source of reconstruction of a certificate of title. It 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 the land covered by the lost or destroyed title but merely
determines whether a re-issuance of such title is proper. (citations omitted)

Fifth. The photocopy of TCT No. 206714 offered by [Marcelino] can only be considered secondary
evidence, hence, inadmissible. Absent any satisfactory proof that would establish its admissibility as
provided under Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the same cannot be relied upon [for] the
reconstitution of the subject certificate of title.

What further surprises this Court is that [in] the said copy, the name of the subject lot's registered
owner was concealed as the space provided for therein was deliberately covered. [Marcelino] even
failed to testify why he had a photocopy of the owner's duplicate copy and how he was able to
secure the same. (italics supplied)

Sixth. The Sketch Plan and Subdivision Plan submitted by [Marcelino] are mere additional
requirements under R.A. No. 26 and per se not sufficient bases for reconstitution. This is evident
under Section 12 of R.A. No. 26, thus:

xxxx

We also examined the LRA Report dated January 21, 2008 verifying that the plan and technical
description of Lot 457-A-12-B-2-B-2-A of the Subdivision Plan are true representations of the lot
approved under (LRA) PR-08-01589-R. Despite said certification, [we] cannot still ascertain whether
this lot was indeed covered by TCT No. 206714 and registered under Luz Dela Paz. The Report
states "x x x Transfer Certificate of Title No. 206714, allegedly lost or destroyed and supposedly
covering Lot 457- A-12-B-2-B-2-A of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-214428 xxx." The Technical
Description and Sketch/Special Plan appended therewith do not even bear the TCT covering said
property. Moreover, the officers who certified and verified the plan and technical description of the
land were not presented as witnesses to confirm the same. 7

Aggrieved by the reversal, Marcelino filed a motion for reconsideration that the CA eventually
denied; hence, the present petition.

THE PETITION

Marcelino faults the CA in saying that the documentary evidence submitted are not enough to
reconstitute TCT No. 206714. He argues that he has fully complied with the jurisdictional
requirements set forth in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26. The RTC even found it proper to reconstitute
based on the approved subdivision plan and technical description of the property.

Marcelino submits that the documents he submitted are sufficient to establish the existence of TCT
No. 206714 to warrant its reconstitution. Although the certification that the original copy of TCT No.
206714 was not included among those saved during the fire is pro forma, it is still a public document
which contents are presumed to be true and accurate. Meanwhile, the LRA report favors
reconstitution because (1) the approved plan and technical description were verified by the LRA; and
(2) the report mentions that the approved plan and technical description may be used as basis for
the property's description in the reconstituted title. As to the other documents, Marcelino maintains
that they are genuine evidence for reconstitution as they are public documents. Therefore,
considered all together, the pieces of documentary evidence are sufficient for reconstituting TCT No.
206714.

THE COURT'S RULING

The present petition is devoid of merit.

Preliminary considerations

The issue to be resolved in this case is whether Marcelino presented competent proof that TCT No.
206714 may be reconstituted based on the documentary evidence he submitted. We generally do
not entertain a question of fact requiring a re-evaluation of the evidence on record, given the limited
rule review provided us in Rule 45 that a petition shall only raise questions of law.

The Court, not being a trier of facts, does not routinely undertake the reexamination of the evidence
presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.  Ordinarily, we will not review the
8

factual findings of the lower courts as they are conclusive and binding. This rule, however, is subject
to a number of exceptions, i.e., when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court.
Here, the CA reversed the RTC's Order because it found the submitted documentary evidence
unsatisfactory to warrant reconstitution.

For this reason, we take cognizance of the issue before us and shall examine the probative weight of
the pieces of evidence presented by Marcelino to support his petition for reconstitution.

Quantum of evidence required in

Time and time again, we have cautioned the lower courts against the hasty and reckless grant of
petitions for reconstitution. In such cases, it is the duty of the court to carefully scrutinize and verify
all supporting documents, deeds, and certifications. In fact, we have warned the courts in
reconstitution proceedings of the tampering of genuine certificates of title and the issuance of fake
ones - a widespread occurrence that has seriously threatened the stability of our Torrens system. It
is most unfortunate that our courts have been, at times, unwitting accomplices to these transactions
and easy targets for corruption. 9

Reconstitution is the restoration of the instrument or title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original
form and condition.  Its only purpose is to have the title reproduced, after observing the procedure
10

prescribed by law, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred.  The process
11

involves diligent circumspect evaluation of the authenticity and relevance of all the evidence
presented for fear of the chilling consequences of mistakenly issuing a reconstituted title when in fact
the original is not truly lost or destroyed.
12

Henceforth, it is imperative that a proper standard be set in evaluating the probative value of the
documentary evidence. Having such a standard would guide our courts accordingly in granting the
reconstitution of a certificate of title, and would serve as a yardstick in determining whether trial court
judges have grossly violated their judicial duty to warrant the imposition of administrative sanctions.

The established legal principle in actions involving land registration is that a party must prove its
allegations not merely by a preponderance of evidence, but by clear and convincing
evidence.  Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief
13

or conviction as to the allegation sought to be established.  It is indeterminate, being more than
14
preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt in
criminal cases.  Appropriately, this is the standard of proof that is required in reconstitution
15

proceedings. 16

To our mind, clear and convincing evidence proving the jurisdictional requirements must exist before
a court may order the reconstitution of a destroyed or lost title. An order reconstituting a title would
produce two (2) effects: the cancellation of the alleged lost or destroyed title and the reissuance of a
1 new duplicate title in its original form and condition. In addition, a reconstitution proceeding is an in
rem proceeding; and when an order in such a proceeding becomes final, the findings therein can no
longer be opened for review.  With these in mind, evidence proving the petitioner's allegations in a
17

petition for reconstitution is needed because, without proof that a certificate of title existed and was
eventually lost or destroyed, this alleged lost or destroyed title is still presumed to exist.

Therefore, in order to forestall, if not eliminate entirely, anomalous or irregular reconstitution of a lost
or destroyed title, the petitioner must clearly show with convincing evidence: (1) that a certificate of
title was lost or destroyed; (2) that the certificate of title sought to be reconstituted is in its original
form before it was lost; and (3) that the petition has legal interest over the land covered by the lost or
destroyed title.

The petition lacks competent

In his petition, Marcelino enumerates the documents he had submitted, which the RTC relied upon in
granting the petition for reconstitution:

(1) Extrajudicial Settlement dated 23 October 2000 executed by the heirs of the late Luz Dela Paz
involving the property covered by TCT No. 206714;

(2) Affidavit of Publication of the extrajudicial settlement issued by the newspaper Remate dated 20

(3) Deed of Absolute Sale dated 23 November 2005 excuted by the heirs of Luz Dela Paz in
Marcelino's favor concerning the subject lot;

(4) Certification dated 17 November 2006 issued by the LRA to the effect that TCT No. 206714 was
not included among those saved titles during the fire that razed the Quezon City Hall Building on 11
June 1988 and the records leading to its issuance were burned;

(5) Affidavit of Loss dated 23 November 2005 executed by Marcelino as to the loss of the duplicate
owner's copy of TCT No. 206714 duly annotated by the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City;

(6) Tax Declaration or Official Receipt issued by the Office of the City Treasurer of Quezon City
showing payment of real property tax covering the subject lot;

(7) A photocopy of TCT No. 206714;

(8) Extrajudicial Sketch Plan of TCT No. 206714;

(9) Subdivision Plan certified by the microfilming officer of the LRA; and

(10) The LRA Report to the trial court which states:

2. The plan and technical description of Lot 457-A-12-B-2-B-2-A of the subdivision plan
(LRC) Psd-214428, were verified correct by this Authority to represent the aforesaid lot and
the same have been approved under (LRA) PR-08-01589-R pursuant to the provisions of
Section 12 of Republic Act No. 26.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing information anent the property in question is respectfully submitted for
consideration in the resolution of the instant petition, and if the Honorable Court, after notice and
hearing, finds justification pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 26 to grant the same, the plan
and technical description having been approved, may be used as basis for the inscription of the
technical description on the reconstituted certificate." 18

Section 110 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree,
as amended by R.A. No. 6732, allows the reconstitution of lost or destroyed original Torrens
title.  Based on the foregoing, reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate of title may be done
19

judicially, in accordance with the special procedure laid down in R.A. No. 26;  or administratively, in
20

accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6732. By filing the Petition for Reconstitution with the
RTC, Marcelino sought judicial reconstitution of TCT No. 206714.

Section 3 of R.A. No. 26 enumerates the sources for reconstitution of TCTs:

Sec. 3. Transfer 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) The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the registry of deeds, containing the description
of the 'property, or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had been registered, and
pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer 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.  (emphasis supplied)
1âwphi1

Not one of the documentary evidence Marcelino had presented falls under this enumeration. Our
reasons, apart from those that the CA had already discussed, are as follows:

First. The extrajudicial settlement and the deed of absolute sale cannot fall under paragraph (d) of
Section 3 of R.A. No. 26 because (1) these were not filed with the Registry of Deeds and, more
importantly, (2) these were not the basis for the issuance of TCT No. 206714. True, they involve the
same property covered by TCT No. 206714; however, neither the extrajudicial settlement nor the
deed of sale reflects under whose name the title should be registered. If we were to use the
extrajudicial settlement between the heirs of Luz Dela Paz as basis for a reconstituted title, the title
should reflect that the land is registered under their names. By analogy, the same logic applies if we
were to use the deed of absolute sale in favor of Marcelino. As clearly alleged in the petition,
Marcelino seeks to reconstitute the title under the name of Luz Dela Paz; hence, for the court to
order the reconstitution of a title where the registered owner is Luz Dela Paz, a deed of transfer or
other document transferring ownership to such person should be presented.

Second. The photocopy of TCT No. 206714 that Marcelino offered as evidence is not a certified
copy previously issued by the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City or by the legal custodian thereof.
The requirement for a certified true copy of the title has practical considerations: (1) a copy of a
document, without a certification that it is an exact copy of the original from its legal custodian, lacks
credibility and weight as evidence; and (2) it would be impossible to reconstitute a title not based on
an exact and accurate copy of its original. As noted by the CA, the name of the registered owner in
the photocopy of TCT No. 206714 was concealed as the space provided for therein was deliberately
covered.  Following the purpose of reconstitution, we cannot allow the reproduction of a title based
21

on a document that does not identify the registered owner. This circumstance on its own already
raises doubt as to the authenticity and genuineness of the photocopy of TCT No. 206714.

Third. None of the documents submitted by Marcelino fall under paragraph (f) because they are not
similar to those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e), which all pertain to documents issued or are on
file with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. 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,
22

in Republic of the Phils. v. Santua,  we held that when paragraph (f) speaks of any other document,
23

the same must refer to similar documents previously enumerated therein, that is, those mentioned in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).

The documents alluded to in paragraph (f) must be resorted to in the absence of those preceding in
order.  If the petitioner for reconstitution fails to show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such prior
24

documents (except with respect to the owner's duplicate copy of the title which it claims had been,
likewise, destroyed) and had failed to find them, the presentation of the succeeding documents as
substitutionary evidence is proscribed. 25

Moreover, it is settled that reconstitution on the basis of a survey plan and technical description is
void for want of factual support.  In themselves, such plan and technical description are not
26

recognized sources of reconstitution of title under Section 3 of R.A. No. 26. In fact, under Section 12
of R.A. No. 26 and LRA Circular No. 35 dated 13 June 1983, the submitted survey plan and
technical description are mere additional documents that accompany the competent sources for
reconstitution. This can clearly be gleaned from the wording of the law:

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 [Regional Trial Court], 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 owners duplicate of the certificate of title had
been lost or destroyed; (b) that no co-owners, mortgagees, or lessees 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 building 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 of 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(t) or 3(t) of this Act,
the petition shall be further 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 and
underlining supplied)

Similarly, paragraph 5 of LRA Circular No. 35 dated 13 June 1983 states that:

In case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources enumerated in Sections 2 (f) and 3
(f) of Republic Act No. 26, in relation to Section 12 thereof, the signed duplicate copy of the petition
to be forwarded to this Commission shall be accompanied by the following:

(a) A duly prepared plan of said parcel of land in tracing cloth, with two (2) print copies thereof,
prepared by the government agency which issued the certified technical description, or by a duly
certified technical description. Where the plan as submitted is certified by the government agency
which issued the same, it is sufficient that the technical description be prepared by a duly licensed
Geodetic Engineer on the basis of said certified plan. (emphasis and underlining supplied)

Fourth. Neither does the tax declaration submitted support Marcelino's cause. 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 the land
covered by the lost or destroyed title but merely determines whether a re-issuance of such title is
proper.  At most, the tax declaration is merely a prima facie evidence that the subject land has been
27

declared for taxation purposes by Marcelino.

In sum, all these documentary evidence being considered, we find that not one of them is a
competent source for reconstitution.

The requirements under R.A. No. 26 are indispensable and must be strictly complied with. In a
reconstitution proceeding, the petitioner is burdened to adduce in evidence the documents in the
order stated in Section 3 of R.A. No. 26 as sources of the deed to be reconstituted, and likewise
burdened to prove the execution or existence of the original copy of the title, which is the copy on file
with the Registry of Deeds, and the contents thereof.  Here, Marcelino failed to do both; thus, the CA
28

did not commit a reversible error in reversing the RTC's order, and in dismissing the petition for
reconstitution.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the· instant petition is DENIED. The 4 October 2010 Decision

SO ORDERED.

SAMUEL R. MARTIRES