[ G.R. No. 214223.

January 10, 2023 ]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES JOVITO AND KATHLEEN

BERCEDE, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

KHO, JR., J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 dated October 22, 2014 filed by the
Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), assailing the Decision2 dated October 29, 2013 and the
Resolution3 dated August 28, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 03344.
The CA affirmed the Judgment4 dated September 16, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu
City, Branch 6 (RTC) granting the Petition for Reconstitution5 of Original Certificate of Title No.
4275 (OCT No. 4275) filed by respondents spouses Jovito and Kathleen Bercede (Kathleen;
collectively respondents).

The Facts

In their Petition for Reconstitution dated June 12, 2008, respondents claimed that they are
the owners of a 345 square meter parcel of land denominated as Lot No. 199 of the Cadastral
Survey of Carcar, situated in Barangay Poblacion II, Carcar City, Cebu,6 which is covered by
OCT No. 4275.

Respondents allege that they purchased the property from Kathleen's parents,7 Spouses
Edgar Paraz (Edgar) and Drusilla V. Paraz (Drusilla),8 via a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on
June 5, 2008.9 Edgar and Drusilla, in turn, bought the property from Kathleen's
grandmother,10 Lourdes Paraz (Lourdes),11 through an Absolute Deed of Sale dated March 23,
1987.12 Lourdes, meanwhile, acquired the property from the heirs of the original owners, the
spouses Teofisto Alesna (Teofisto)13 and Faustina Esmeña (Faustina),14 by way of an extra-
judicial settlement of the estate of Teofisto and Faustina with a deed of absolute sale dated
August 5, 1975 (extra-judicial settlement with deed of absolute sale).15 Lot No. 199 is still
registered in the names of its original owners, the spouses Teofisto and Faustina, as reflected in
the photocopy of OCT No. 4275 on record.16

Praying for the reconstitution of OCT No. 4275, respondents averred that the original copy of
the said title, which should have been on file with the Office of the Register of Deeds of the
Province of Cebu, as well as the owner's duplicate copy, have both been lost and
destroyed.17 Respondents presented the following in support of their Petition for
Reconstitution: (1) a photocopy of OCT No. 4275;18 (2) Tax Declaration No. 02434 issued in
2002, still in the name of Teofisto;19 (3) tax clearance issued by the Office of the City Treasurer
dated June 4, 2008,20 indicating that taxes have been paid for the property and that there are no
tax arrears due on even date; (4) the extra-judicial settlement with deed of absolute sale and the
two succeeding deeds of sale showing the transfer of the property from Teofisto and Faustina,
the original owners of the property, to respondents;21 and (5) a Certification issued on June 3,
2008 from the Land Registration Authority (LRA)-Office of the Register of Deeds,22 stating that
the certificate of title covering Lot No. 199 issued in the name of Teofisto and Faustina is not
available, as it has either been burned or lost during the last World War. In compliance with its
Order23 dated April 7, 2009, respondents also submitted to the RTC a copy of the
Certification24 dated April 29, 2009 issued by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), which indicated the geographic position and plane coordinates of Carcar
Cadastral Survey No. 30 covering Lot No. 199, as well as the map of Carcar Cadastre No. 30
showing the relative position of Lot No. 199.25

In an Opposition26 dated July 3, 2009, petitioner sought to dismiss the Petition for
Reconstitution, contending that the same should comply with the mandatory requirements

Page 1 of 15
provided under Republic Act No. (RA) 26,27 as amended.28 According to petitioner, respondents
are obliged under Section 15 of RA 26 to prove by competent evidence that: (1) the documents
presented are sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed
certificate of title; (2) the respondents are the registered owners of the property or have an
interest therein; (3) the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed;
and (4) the description, area, and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those
contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.29

The RTC Ruling

In a Judgment30 dated September 16, 2009, the RTC ruled in respondents' favor, and
accordingly, directed the Register of Deeds of the province of Cebu to reconstitute the original
copy of OCT No. 4275 in the name of spouses Teofisto and Faustina and to furnish respondents
with a copy thereof.31 The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the court grants the petition in favor of the [respondents]. Spouses Jovito and
Kathleen Bercede. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Cebu is directed to reconstitute the
£A⩊phi£

Original Certificate of Title No. 4275 in the name of Spouses Teofisto Alesna and Faustina
Esmeña and to furnish the petitioners, Spouses Jovito and Kathleen Bercede with a copy
thereof, upon payment of any appropriate fees.

SO ORDERED.32

Finding sufficient basis for the reconstitution of OCT No. 4275, the RTC found that: first, the
Certification issued by the LRA confirmed the loss or destruction of the certificate of title issued in
the names of Teofisto and Faustina, thereby warranting reconstitution of the title;33 second,
respondents, through the successive transfers of Lot No. 199 which culminated in their
ownership, have shown that they have an interest over the property;34 and third, Tax
Declaration No. 02434, in relation to the photocopy of OCT No. 4275, means that the title is still
in force and that the area and boundaries of the property are the same as those contained in
OCT No. 4275.35

Appeal to the CA

Undaunted, petitioner appealed to the CA.36 It insisted that respondents did not comply with
the requirements of RA 26, since no valid source or basis for reconstitution of OCT No. 4275 was
presented in evidence. Petitioner also argued that respondents have not shown that the
certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed or that the description, area, and
boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed
certificate of title.37

Petitioner also put in issue the supposed intercalations and erasures on the photocopy of
OCT No. 4275, including the handwritten and allegedly superimposed number 4275, arguing that
Section 5 (2)38 of RA 26, as amended,39 requires that the certificate of title should be free from
apparent erasures and alterations.40 Petitioner further pointed out that respondents failed to
submit to the LRA a certified technical description of the property,41 per the Manifestation of LRA
Administrator Benedicto B. Ulep dated November 6, 200942 and March 19, 2010,43 and in a
Letter from the LRA dated July 16, 201044 addressed to the RTC, requiring submission of the
technical description of Lot No. 199. Finally, petitioner drew attention to the lack of notices sent to
the registered owners, Teofisto and Faustina, and respondents' predecessors-in-interest, Edgar
and Drusilla.45

The CA Ruling

In a Decision46 dated October 29, 2013, the CA affirmed the RTC. The decretal portion of
the CA Decision reads as follows:

Page 2 of 15
 WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The September 16, 2009 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, of Cebu City is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.

SO ORDERED.47

The CA held that the basis of the reconstitution — the photocopy of OCT No. 4275 — falls
under the category "any other document" as mentioned in Section 2 (f) of RA 26 as one possible
source of reconstitution.48 The CA agreed with the RTC that the photocopy of OCT No. 4275 is
a reliable document from which the original instrument or title may be reconstituted.49

Further, the CA rejected the conclusion drawn by petitioner that the photocopy of OCT No.
4275 is fake and spurious, it being a mere photocopy with alterations apparent on its
face.50 According to the CA, this issue has been raised for the first time on appeal and thus
barred by estoppel.51 The CA opined that it would be against the basic principles of fair play,
justice, and due process for a reviewing court to consider issues and arguments not brought to
the trial court's attention.52

Furthermore, the CA pointed out that the contents of the photocopy of OCT No. 4275
— i.e., what property it covers (Lot No. 199), the area and the metes and bounds of the same, as
well as the names of the registered owners appearing on the photocopy — all coincide with the
other documents on record as submitted by the respondents, such as Tax Declaration No. 02434
and the extra-judicial settlement with deed of absolute sale executed by the heirs of Teofisto and
Faustina.53 To the CA, all these indicate that OCT No. 4275 actually existed.54 The CA also
thought it noteworthy to highlight that the LRA issued a Certification that suggests that the
original of OCT No. 4275 is not available because it has either been lost or destroyed during the
last World War.55

Finally, the CA held that the strict and mandatory requirements laid down under Sections 12
and 13 of RA 26 have been substantially complied with by respondents. It considered the lack of
notices to Teofisto, Faustina, Edgar, and Drusilla to have no bearing on the case since both
Teofisto and Faustina were already deceased at the time the Petition for Reconstitution was filed,
while Edgar and Drusilla, including their predecessor-in-interest Lourdes, no longer have any
interest on the property as they each have sold and transferred their rights to the property.56

Unperturbed, petitioner moved for reconsideration. This was, however, denied by the CA in a
Resolution57 dated August 28, 2014.

Hence, this petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC
Judgment, which granted the Petition for Reconstitution filed by the respondents, and accordingly
directed the reconstitution of OCT No. 4275.

The petitioner maintains that the CA Decision and Resolution are not in accord with law and
jurisprudence on the reconstitution of titles.58 It argues that respondents have not proven that
the owner's duplicate copy of the OCT was also missing because the Certification from the LRA
refers solely to the original supposed to be on its file,59 and resort to a mere photocopy is
therefore unjustified.60 Petitioner insists that a mere photocopy is not a valid source to
reconstitute a title,61 and avers further that the photocopy of OCT No. 4275 is unreliable
because it appears to have been tampered with, there being intercalations and erasures on its
face.62 On this score, petitioner disagrees with the CA that it cannot raise these issues for the
first time on appeal, invoking the rule that estoppel cannot bar the State's right to assail an act
that contravenes law and public policy and the rule that the State could not be put in estoppel by
the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents.63 The petitioner also calls attention to the

Page 3 of 15
dissimilarity between the OCT number stated in the extra-judicial settlement with deed of
absolute sale with the OCT number indicated on the Absolute Deed of Sale between Lourdes
and spouses Edgar and Drusilla.64 Moreover, petitioner stresses, in accordance with the two
Manifestations of the LRA, that the description, area, and boundaries of the property cannot even
be properly identified due to the lack of a technical description.65

In their Comment66 dated February 10, 2016, respondents maintain that there are no
reversible errors in the rulings of the RTC and CA to warrant reversal.67 According to them, the
assailed rulings sufficiently explained that respondents were able to prove and establish the
requirements set forth under RA 26.68 They contend that the non-submission of a certified true
copy of OCT No. 4275, due to it being lost and destroyed, did not violate RA 26 since the said
law allows the presentation of other documents for the reconstitution of a certificate of
title.69 Respondents insist that they complied with all the requirements, including the requirement
of notice and publication,70 and aver that they already submitted to the RTC on June 11, 2009
their compliance with the request of the LRA for the submission of the geographic position and
plane coordinates of the subject property.71 They argue that the discrepancy in the number
appearing in the OCT and that appearing in the extra-judicial settlement with deed of absolute
sale is clearly a clerical error that did not alter the identity of Lot No. 199.72 Respondents further
assert that petitioner's observations on the erasures appearing on the photocopy of OCT No.
4275 have no bearing on the case since both the RTC and CA have found the evidence they
submitted as sufficient,73 and that the said erasures should not affect their right to have the title
reconstituted after following the requirements of hearing and publication.74 Finally, they submit
that sustaining the arguments of petitioner would defeat the purpose of the law allowing the
reconstitution of lost and destroyed certificates of title.75

The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

The judicial reconstitution of a Torrens title under RA 26 means the restoration in the original
form and condition of a lost or destroyed Torrens certificate attesting the title of a person to
registered land.76 The purpose of reconstitution is to enable, after observing the procedures
prescribed by law, the reproduction of the lost or destroyed Torrens certificate in the same form
and in exactly the same way it was at the time of the loss or destruction.77

The nature and requirements of judicial reconstitution of title was explained by the Court
in Denila v. Republic of the Philippines78 (Denila), as follows:

Reconstitution of title is a special proceeding. Being a special proceeding, a petition for

reconstitution must allege and prove certain specific jurisdictional facts before a trial court can
acquire jurisdiction. R.A. No. 26, as amended, is the special law which provides for a specific
procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title lost or destroyed; Sections 2 and 3
thereof provide how original certificates of title and transfer certificates of title shall be
respectively reconstituted and from what specific sources successively enumerated therein such
reconstitution shall be made. It confers jurisdiction upon trial courts to hear and decide petitions
for judicial reconstitution; however, before the court can properly act, assume and acquire
jurisdiction or authority over the petition and grant the reconstitution prayed for, petitioner must
observe certain special requirements and mode of procedure prescribed by the law. More
importantly, substantial compliance with jurisdictional requirement is not enough
because the acquisition of jurisdiction over a reconstitution case is hinged on a strict
compliance with the requirements of the law.

Conversely, noncompliance with all jurisdictional requirements in special proceedings (such

as reconstitution of title) adversely affects the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case and, in cases where a specific procedure is outlined by law, over the remedy pursued
by petitioner. Failure to comply with any of the jurisdictional requirements for a petition for

Page 4 of 15
reconstitution renders the whole proceedings null and void. Strict observance of this rule
is vital to prevent parties from exploiting reconstitution proceedings as a quick but illegal
way to obtain Torrens certificates of title over parcels of land which turn out to be already
covered by existing titles. Comparatively, this Court cannot even take a lenient approach in
resolving reconstitution cases because liberal construction of the Rules does not apply to
substantive requirements specifically enumerated by a statute, especially so if matters affecting
jurisdiction are involved. In other words, the principle of liberality cannot be applied to statutory
requirements as they are not technical rules of procedure which may be brushed aside by the
courts to serve the higher reason of resolving the case on the merits. In special proceedings, the
merits directly hinges on petitioner's compliance with statutory requirements proven in court to
establish a status, right or particular fact.

Accordingly, in obtaining a new title in lieu of the lost or destroyed one, petitioner must be
mindful of R.A. No. 26 which laid down procedures that must be strictly followed in view of the
danger that reconstitution could be the source of anomalous titles or unscrupulously availed of as
an easy substitute for original registration of title proceedings. Even in the absence of an
opposition, a petition for reconstitution which does not strictly adhere to the requirements of the
law will not be granted in the pretext that the same proceeding will not affect the ownership or
possession of the property. Hence, it is the reason why this Court has held in numerous cases
involving reconstitution of title that noncompliance with the prescribed procedure and
requirements deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of
the case and, consequently, all its proceedings are rendered null and void.79 (Emphases
and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

In this connection, RA 26 laid down the mandatory procedure and requirements that should
be followed, whether the reconstitution is judicial or administrative.80 For judicial reconstitution
of an existing and valid Original Certificates of Title, as in this case, and Transfer Certificates of
Title, Sections 2 and 3 of RA 26 have expressly listed the acceptable bases or sources, as
follows:

Section 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.

Section 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;

Page 5 of 15
 (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.

The Court notes that RA 26 provides for two procedures and sets of requirements in the
reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title depending on the source of the petition for
reconstitution.81 Section 10, in relation to Section 9 of RA 26, provides the procedure and
requirements for sources falling under Sections 2 (a), 2 (b), 3 (a), and 3 (b) thereof. On the other
hand, Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26 lay down the procedure and requirements for sources falling
under Sections 2 (c), 2 (d), 2 (e), 2 (f), 3 (c), 3 (d), 3 (e), and 3 (f) thereof. Thus, before a court
can properly act, assume, and acquire jurisdiction over the petition and grant the reconstitution
prayed for, the party seeking the reconstitution of a title must observe the aforementioned
procedures and requirements.82

Relative thereto, the Court is mindful of its pronouncement that when Sections 2 (f) and 3 (f)
of RA 26 speak of "any other document," it refers only to documents that are similar to those
previously enumerated therein or those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e).83 In addition, the
"document" referred to in paragraph (f) can only be resorted to in the absence of those preceding
in order.84 Hence, if a party seeking to reconstitute a title fails to show that such prior documents
had been sought and had not been found, then the presentation of the succeeding documents as
substitutionary evidence is proscribed.85

At the outset, the Court finds that both courts a quo did not make any categorical ruling on
whether respondents have established that they failed to secure or find the documents
mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) in Section 2 to justify their resort to a photocopy of OCT No.
4275. In fact, respondents' only basis for seeking reconstitution of their title is that it was lost and
destroyed based on the June 3, 2008 Certification issued by the LRA, both in their Petition for
Reconstitution,86 in their Comments,87 and even in respondent Kathleen Bercede's testimony,
to wit:

ATTY. BARING

xxxx

Q Do you know where is now the copy of the title of this property. Madam Witness,
which is OCT No. 4275, do you know where it is now?

A It is lost and destroyed.

Page 6 of 15
 Q On what basis did you say that, what document in your possession to prove that
indeed this Original Certificate of Title No. 4275 has been lost or destroyed, what
document do you have in your possession to prove that, Madam Witness?

A Certification from the Office of the Register of Deeds.

Q I am showing to you, Madam Witness, a certification issued by the Office of the

Land Registration Authority, Office of the Register of Deeds, Province of Cebu
issued a certification to the effect that the certificate of title covering Lot No. 199
of the Cadastral Survey of Carcar is not available and it is lost or destroyed
during the last World War, are you referring to this document. Madam Witness?

A Yes88.

Based on this fact alone, respondents' Petition for Reconstitution should have been
dismissed by the RTC and should not have prospered. It is significant to note that the June 3,
2008 Certification issued by the LRA refers only to the loss or destruction of the copy of OCT No.
4275 on file with the Register of Deeds, and does not lend itself to a reading that even the
owner's duplicate copy or other copies thereof over which the LRA or the Register of Deeds have
no control over were likewise lost or destroyed. Respondents, therefore, were still required to
show that indeed, no other copy of OCT No. 4275 is available to justify resorting to its photocopy.
On this score, case law instructs that the unavailability or loss of the source documents listed
higher in the list than the one being offered as the source for a petition for reconstitution must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence.89 Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in
the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegation sought to be
established.90 Thus, the court where a petition for reconstitution was filed must satisfy itself that
indeed, the source document being offered is the one highest in the list which is available and no
other source document in the enumeration which precedes the one being offered is available.
The Court must stress once more that "the term 'any other document' in paragraph (f) refers to
reliable documents of the kind described in the preceding enumerations and that the documents
referred to in [paragraph] (f) may be resorted only in the absence of the preceding documents in
the list. Therefore, the party praying for the reconstitution of a title must show that he had, in fact,
sought to secure such documents and failed to find them before presentation of 'other
documents' as evidence in substitution is allowed."91

Even if the Court agrees with the CA in this case that the old photocopy of OCT No. 4275
falls within the category "any other document" under Section 2 (f) of RA 26 on the supposition
that the owner's duplicate or any other duplicate of the title, a previously-issued certified copy of
the title, an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, or a document on file in the
registry of deeds describing the property or an authenticated copy thereof were all similarly lost
or destroyed, respondents' Petition for Reconstitution should still have been denied for failure to
strictly comply with the statutory requirements for reconstitution under RA 26.

If the source document for a petition for reconstitution falls under Section 2 (f), as what both
courts a quo found to be the case, the applicable procedure is that called for under Sections 12
and 13, and additionally Section 15, of RA 26. These provisions state:

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 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

Page 7 of 15
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 by 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) or 3(f) 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.

Section 13. The court shall cause a notice of the petition, filed under the preceding section,
to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official
Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal
building of the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the
date of hearing. The court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail
or otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein whose address is
known, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Said notice shall state, among other
things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, if known, the name of the registered
owner, the names of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owners of the
adjoining properties and all other interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the
property, and the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their
claim or objections to the petition. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the
publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the court.

xxxx

Section 15. If the court, after hearing, finds that the documents presented, as supported by
parole evidence or otherwise, are sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost or
destroyed certificate of title, and that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or has
an interest therein, that the said certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed,
and that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those
contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title, an order of reconstitution shall be issued.
The clerk of court shall forward to the register of deeds a certified copy of said order and all the
documents which, pursuant to said order, are to be used as the basis of the reconstitution. If the
court finds that there is no sufficient evidence or basis to justify the reconstitution, the petition
shall be dismissed, but such dismissal shall not preclude the right of the party or parties entitled
thereto to file an application for confirmation of his or their title under the provisions of the Land
Registration Act.

As cited earlier, the Court has acknowledged in Denila92 that the reconstitution of a title is a
special proceeding. Being so, a petition seeking to reconstitute a title must allege and prove
certain jurisdictional facts before a trial court can acquire jurisdiction over the petition for
reconstitution.93 On this point, it is clear that RA 26 confers jurisdiction to the courts because it
provides for a specific procedure and enumerates certain requirements before the courts can
properly act and assume authority over a petition for reconstitution.94 Thus, a petitioner must
strictly follow and comply with the special requirements and the mode of procedure prescribed by
RA 26, as substantial compliance with the jurisdictional requirements is not enough
because the acquisition of jurisdiction over a reconstitution case is hinged on strict
compliance with the requirements of the law.95 In other words, non-compliance with the
prescribed procedure and requirements under Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26 deprives the trial
court of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the case, and consequently, all its
proceedings are rendered null and void.96 To stress once more, the rationale underlying this rule
concerns the nature of the conferment in the trial court of jurisdiction to undertake reconstitution
proceedings.97 Hence for the directive to reconstitute a title to be valid, there must be strict
compliance with the procedure and requirements.

Page 8 of 15
 From all the foregoing, the Court lays down the following guidelines for the judicial
reconstitution of original or transfer certificates of title where the source document upon which
the petition for reconstitution is based falls under either Sections 2 (f) or 3 (f) of RA 26, which
identically allow reconstitution based on "[a]ny other document which, in the judgment of the
court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title:"

I. Sections 2 and 3 of RA 26, in enumerating the source documents which may be used as bases for
the reconstitution of an original certificate of title, is clear that the availability and use of the
said source documents should follow the order they are listed. It is only when the source
document in paragraph (a) in either Sections 2 or 3 of RA 26 is not available can prospective
litigants use the source document in paragraph (b), and it is only in the absence of the first two
can prospective litigants use the source document in paragraph (c), and so on.
Parenthetically, prospective litigants can only resort to using the source document in
paragraph (f), Sections 2 and 3, if all the other source documents preceding it in the
enumeration are proven to be not available.

II. When Sections 2 (f) and 3 (f) of RA 26 speak of "any other document," the same must refer to
similar documents previously enumerated therein, that is, those mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), (d), and (e) of both Sections, under the principle of ejusdem generis.

By implication, a court can dismiss a petition for reconstitution outright if, in its judgment, the
source document falling under paragraph (f) in Sections 2 and 3 is not a sufficient and proper
basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title. Note here that 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 the petition.98 Note further
that all of the documents enumerated in Sections 2 and 3 of RA 26 must come from official
sources which recognize the ownership of the owner and his or her predecessors-in-
interest.99

In cases where the LRA itself challenges the authenticity of the applicant's purported owner's
duplicate certificate of title — which is the source document in Section 2 (a) of RA 26 — then the
reconstitution petition should be treated as falling under Section 2 (f) or 3 (f) of RA 26, and
the court should require compliance with the requisites under the Fourth Guideline.100

III. Unavailability or loss of the source documents listed higher in the list than the one being offered
as the source for the petition for reconstitution must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence.101 Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm
belief or conviction as to the allegation sought to be established.102 Thus, the court must satisfy
itself that indeed, the source document being offered is the one highest in the list which is
available and no other source document in the enumeration which precedes the one being
offered is available.

The Register of Deeds must submit written findings on the status of the title sought to be
reconstituted.103 Thus, certifications issued by the LRA or by the Register of Deeds for this
purpose shall be signed and shall explicitly and categorically state whether or not the original
copy on its file of the certificate of title sought to be reconstituted actually existed and that it was
in force at the time it was lost and destroyed, and if it actually existed on file, a brief explanation
why and/or how the same was lost or destroyed. This certification shall likewise state the name
of the registered owner, if known from the other records in its files.104

If the unavailability or loss of the source documents listed higher in the list than the one being
offered as the source for the petition for reconstitution is not duly proven, the petition for
reconstitution should be dismissed. If the petitioner for reconstitution fails to show that he or
she had, in fact, sought to secure such prior documents and failed to find them, the presentation
of the succeeding documents as substitutionary evidence is proscribed.105

Page 9 of 15
 Note in this regard that under Section 14106 of RA 26, if any person withholds, refuses, or fails
within a reasonable time after request or demand, to produce a document or paper without which
the reconstitution of a certificate of title cannot be fully accomplished, the court may, on motion
and after notice and hearing, order such person to produce or surrender such document or paper
at the time and place named in the order and may enforce the same by suitable process.

Note further that the presence or sufficiency of the report or written findings of the LRA or
Register of Deeds is not an indispensable requirement in reconstitution cases.107 It is not
mandatory for the reconstitution court to wait for the report or written findings indefinitely, and if
none is forthcoming on or before the date of the initial hearing, the court may still validly act and
rule on the petition for reconstitution.108

IV. If the source or basis for reconstitution falls under paragraph (f) of Sections 2 and 3 of RA 26,
then the applicable procedure is that provided under Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26. Thus:

(A) The petition may be filed by the registered owner, his or her assigns, or by other persons having
an interest in the property, in the court of proper jurisdiction.

(B) The petition shall state or contain, among other things:

(1) That the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed

(2) That there is no duplicate of the certificate of title issued to a co-owner,

mortgagee, or lessee, or if any had been issued, that the same had been lost
or destroyed.

(3) The location, area, and boundaries of the property.

(4) The nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which do not
belong to the owner of the land.

(5) The names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements
indicated in (B) (4).

(6) The names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the
property.

(7) The names and addresses of the owners of the adjoining properties.

(8) The names and addresses of all persons who may have any interest in the
property.

(9) A detailed description of the encumbrances, if any, affecting the property.

(10) A statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting the property have been
presented for registration or, if there be any, that the registration thereof has not
been accomplished as yet.

(C) The absence of any one of the foregoing jurisdictional averments in the petition for reconstitution
is sufficient basis for the court to dismiss the petition, pursuant to the Sixth Guideline.

(D) 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.

Page 10 of 15
(E) In case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from source documents under
paragraph (f) of Sections 2 and 3, the petition shall be further accompanied with a plan
and technical description of the property duly approved by the LRA, OR with a certified
copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same
property.109

(F) The court, after examining whether the petition is in due form, shall thereupon direct that a notice
of the petition be published, at the expense of the petitioner.

(G) The notice shall be:

(1) Published twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette.

(2) Posted on the main entrance of the provincial building (or provincial
capitol) AND municipal building (or municipal or city hall) of the municipality or
city in which the land lies.

(3) Published twice successively under (G) (1) AND posted in both buildings under
(G) (2) of these guidelines, at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of hearing.

(H) The court shall likewise direct that a copy of the notice be sent — personally, by registered mail,
or otherwise — to every person named in the petition whose address is known, at the expense of
the petitioner, at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing.

(I) The notice shall state, among other things:

(1) The number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, if known.

(2) The name of the registered owner.

(3) The names of the occupants or persons in possession of the property.

(4) The names of the owners of the adjoining properties.

(5) The names of all other interested parties.

(6) The location, area, and boundaries of the property.

(7) The date on which all persons having an interest in the property must appear and
file their claims as they may have or their objections to the petition.

(J) It shall be the duty of the petitioner to verify with the court that the notice to be published and
posted contains all the necessary information as required under these guidelines and RA 26.

(K) Notices of hearing shall be given to:110

(1) The LRA.

(2) The Register of Deeds of the place where the property is located.

(3) The provincial or city fiscal of the province or city where the land is located, who
shall appear for and protect the interest of the government.

(L) The petitioner shall submit proof of the publication and posting of the notice at the hearing.

Page 11 of 15
V. Under Section 15 of RA 26, the court shall issue an order of reconstitution if, after hearing, and by
clear and convincing evidence, it finds that:

(A) The petitioner is the registered owner of the property or has an interest therein.

(B) The said certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed.

(C) The description, area, and boundaries of the property are substantially the same
as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

(D) The documents presented, as supported by parole evidence or otherwise, are

sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed
certificate of title.

The clerk of court shall thereafter forward to the Register of Deeds a certified copy of the order of
reconstitution and all the documents which, pursuant to said order, are to be used as the basis
for reconstitution.

On the other hand, if the court finds that there is no clear and convincing evidence or basis to
justify the reconstitution, the petition shall be dismissed.

VI. The requirements under the Fourth Guideline are jurisdictional and therefore, substantial
compliance is not enough. The acquisition of jurisdiction over a reconstitution case is hinged
on strict compliance with the statutory requirements, and noncompliance renders the
reconstitution proceedings null and void.

Based on these guidelines, the Court holds that the Petition for Reconstitution should not
have been granted by the courts a quo. Close scrutiny of the record shows that the Petition for
Reconstitution, contrary to the ruling of both the RTC and the CA, has NOT complied with the
requisites enumerated under the Fourth Guideline. Therefore, the reconstitution of the original of
OCT No. 4275 is neither warranted nor justified, pursuant to the Sixth Guideline, which mandates
strict compliance.

First, the Petition for Reconstitution omitted several of the needed declarations under
the Fourth Guideline, particularly, those required under letter (B) (2), (4), (6), (9), and (10). This is
evident from respondents' averments in their Petition:

1. Petitioners are of legal age, married to each other, Filipino, residing at Poblacion, Carcar
City, Philippines, where they may be served with the processes of this Honorable Court;

2. Petitioners are the owners of a parcel of land, known as Lot No. 199, situated at Santa
Catalina St., Carcar, City, more particularly described as follows:

"A parcel of land, known as Lot No. 199, of the Cadastral Survey of Carcar,
Cebu, bounded on the North, by Lot No. 188, on the South, but Lot No. 200, on
the East, by the old Carcar river, and on the West, by Santa Catalina St,
containing an area 345 square meters, more or less, covered by OCT NO. 4275"

copy of said Original Certificate of Title is hereto attached as Annex "A";

3. That the aforementioned parcel of land is originally registered in the name of Teopisto
Alesna and Faustina Esmeña;

Page 12 of 15
 4. That for taxation purposes, the aforementioned parcel of land is likewise declared in the
name of Teopisto Alesna, under Tax Declaration No. 02434, copy of which is hereto attached as
Annex "B";

5. That the realty taxes covering the aforementioned parcel of land has been paid, as shown
in the tax clearance, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "C";

6. That the aforementioned parcel of land was acquired by Lourdes Paraz, from the heirs of
Spouses Teopisto Alesna and Faustina Esmeña, through Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with
Sale, copy of said Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with Sale is hereto attached as Annex "D";

7. That Lourdes Paraz in turned [sic] sold the aforementioned parcel of land to Spouses
Edgar Paraz and Drusilla Villarosa, as shown in the Deed of Absolute [Sale] executed by
Lourdes Paraz, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "E";

8. That Spouses Edgar Paras and Drusilla Villarosa in turned [sic] sold the aforementioned
property to the herein [respondents], as shown in the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by said
spouses, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "F";

9. That the owner's duplicate copy of Original Certificate of Title No. 4275, as well [as] the
copy of said title in the Office of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cebu, has been lost
and destroyed, as shown by the certification issues by the Register of Deeds of the Province of
Cebu. copy of said certification is hereto attached as Annex "G";

10. That the names and addresses of the adjoining owners of the parcel of land subject
matter of this case are the following:

North: Lot No. 198 - Eufronio Alesna

Address: Poblacion, Carcar City

South: Santa Catalina St.;

East: Old Carcar River;

West: Santa Catalina St.,

[11.] That on the basis of the foregoing, there is a need to reconstitute the original certificate
of title covering the parcel of land subject matter of this case.111

As may be gleaned above, the Petition for Reconstitution did state how the respondents
came to own the property, that realty taxes thereon had been paid, that the original and owner's
duplicate copy had both been lost and destroyed,112 as well as the names of the adjoining
owners and its boundaries.113

However, the Petition for Reconstitution failed to: first, state that no co-owner's,
mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate has been issued or, if any had been issued, that the same has
also been lost or destroyed, as required under letter (B) (2) of the Fourth Guideline;114 second,
mention whether or not there are buildings or improvements on the property that do not belong to
the owners thereof, as required under letter (B) (4) of the Fourth Guideline;115 third, state the
names and addresses of the actual occupants or persons in possession of the property, as
required under letter (B) (6) of the Fourth Guideline,116 considering that the only declaration to
this effect is that which alleged that respondents are the owners of Lot No. 199, which is covered
by OCT No. 4275;117 fourth, allege whether or not there exist encumbrances that affect the
property, as required under letter (B) (9) of the Fourth Guideline;118 and fifth, state that no
deeds or other instruments affecting the property have been presented for registration, or if there
are, whether the registration thereof has been accomplished, as required under letter (B) (10) of

Page 13 of 15
the Fourth Guideline.119 The required declarations for the foregoing guidelines, the Court notes,
require not just an affirmative declaration from respondents if such fact is true, but also a
negative declaration, if such is not the case — thus, respondents must still aver in their Petition
for Reconstitution that no duplicates of the certificate of title were issued, that there are no
structures on the property or that the structures on the property are owned by them, that there
are no occupants or persons in possession of the same, and that there are no encumbrances
affecting the property and no other deeds relating to the same have been presented for
registration.

Notably, none of the preceding information is evident from the Petition for Reconstitution or
in any of the corroborating documents submitted by respondents, and no explanation or
justification for these omissions were provided. The Court finds it insufficient for respondents to
merely refer to the assailed rulings in rationalizing that they have proven and established the
requirements under RA 26, where nothing was specifically mentioned as to how these
requirements were complied with. Parenthetically, the only statement made by the courts a
quo in this regard was that respondents have substantially complied with the requirements
under Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26. As already explained, however, substantial compliance is
not enough. 1âшphi1

Second, the actual serial number of the original certificate of title, including the serial number
of the decree granting the same, is not clear from the photocopy of OCT No. 4275 on
record.120 Indeed, the only clear numbers appearing thereon are "7" and "5"; and the only
indication that the certificate of title is numbered "4275" is that these numbers were handwritten
in blue ink above the numbers "75". Likewise, the serial number of the decree granting the title
appearing on the photocopy only shows the numbers "5" and "4", with the numbers "987" again
handwritten in blue ink and repeated on the upper right hand of the photocopy. The Court finds
no explanation was given by respondents as to these handwritten intercalations.

These details should have been checked and inspected by the RTC and the CA, and should
have alerted them despite the many points with which the corroborative documents concur and
coincide with the photocopy of OCT No. 4275. The fact that the number "4275" was handwritten
on the document should have further raised red flags considering that the foundational
corroborative document showing the first transfer of ownership, the extrajudicial settlement with
deed of absolute sale, did state that Lot No. 199 is covered by OCT No. 275, not 4275, in both
words and figures, which is different from the purported serial number of the original certificate
of title, as follows:

A parcel of land (Lot No. 199 of the Cadastral Survey of Carcar, with all
buildings and improvements, except those herein expressly noted as belonging
to other persons, situated in the Municipality of Carcar; and containing an area of
THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY FIVE (345) SQUARE METERS, more or less;
and more particularly described in Original Certificate of Title No. TWO
HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE (275), issued in the name of the spouses Teopisto
Alesna and Faustina Esmeña; Tax Declaration No. 19282 (House); Tax
Declaration No. 54508 (Land).121

The Court is aware that the inaccuracy in this particular description of the property may have
been a mere clerical error, as alleged by respondents.122 Still, no detailed explanation or
justification was provided for the said discrepancy by respondents, and nothing on this point
appears on record or was discussed by the courts a quo.

Finally, the proviso of Section 12, as stated in letter (E) of the Fourth Guideline, is explicit
that in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources mentioned in paragraph (f)
of Sections 2 and 3, then the petition "shall be further accompanied with a plan and technical
description of the property duly approved by the Chief of the Land Registration Office, or with a
certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same

Page 14 of 15
property." A document showing compliance with this requirement is noticeably absent
from the Petition for Reconstitution, and once more should have alerted the courts a quo that
something is amiss with the same.

In this regard, the Court notes that in their Comment, respondents refer to their
Compliance123 dated June 11, 2009, in which they informed the RTC that they already "sent" to
the Office of the Reconstitution Division of the LRA the DENR Certification indicating the
geographic position and plane coordinates of Carcar Cadastral Survey No. 30 covering Lot No.
199, and the map of Carcar Cadastre No. 30, showing the relative position of Lot No. 199.
However, the Court notes that this is insufficient compliance with the proviso of Section 12
(Fourth Guideline, [E]), considering that the provision requires that a technical
description accompany, or should be attached to, the Petition for reconstitution. Moreover, at
least three documents on record show that, despite the purported compliance by respondents
on June 11, 2009, the LRA has not received anything for it to be able to issue a duly-approved
plan and technical description of the property for the reconstitution of OCT No. 4275 as required
by the proviso of Section 12 (Fourth Guideline, [E]) — the LRA Manifestation dated November 6,
2009,124 which reiterated the request for respondents to submit the geographical position and
plane coordinates of BM No. 1, Carcar Cadastre No. 30; the LRA Manifestation dated March 19,
2010,125 which once more reiterated the request from the previous LRA Manifestation; and the
LRA Letter dated July 16, 2010,126 requesting copies of the technical description of Lot No.
199, certified by an authorized officer of the LRA or the Land Management Bureau. The courts a
quo are duty-bound to take into account all these LRA issuances,127 and they should not have
overlooked the same.

To reiterate, the aforementioned contents under the Fourth Guideline are jurisdictional to
petitions for reconstitution under RA 26, so much so that strict and not merely substantial
compliance is required. Failure to do so renders said petitions dismissible, as in this case.

As a final note, the Court has often pronounced that courts should be judicious and proceed
with extreme caution in cases for reconstitution of titles to land under RA 26.128 Experience has
shown that such proceedings have many times been misused as a means of divesting property
owners of title to their properties, with owners waking up one day to discover that their
certificates of title had already been canceled and replaced by reconstituted titles in other
persons' names through fraudulent reconstitution proceedings.129 Thus, to prevent fraud, courts
should require strict compliance with the requirements of RA 26.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 29, 2013 and the
Resolution dated August 28, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 03344 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for Reconstitution docketed as G.L.R.O.
Record No. 58/Cadastral Case No. 2 — Carcar City, Cebu is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Page 15 of 15