REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated October 4, 2023 which reads as follows :
"G.R. No. 262854 (HEIRS of FELICISIMA B. BUENDIA,
represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, PETRONILIO B. BUENDIA,
Petitioners v. HERLY BRUNO, Respondent). - This Court resolves the
I
Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the heirs of Felicisima B .
Buendia (Heirs of Buendia), represented by their attorney-in-fact Petronilio
B. Buendia (Petronilio), assailing the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) which declared the Order4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
that granted the petition for reconstitution fi led by Felicisima Buendia
(Felicisima) as null and void.

Antecedent Facts

In 2010, Felicisima filed a pet1t1on for the reconstitution of fo ur

unnamed transfer certificates of t itle (TCT) before the RTC of Malolos,
Bulacan based on the following sources: a) Approved Subdivision Plan
LRC-PSD-5 550 and the corresponding technical description thereof; and
b) tax declaration covering the subject lots.5 The petition was captioned : " I N
RE: RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NOS.
T-(NIA) _ _ .,· T-(N/A) _ _; T-(N/A) _ _; T-(NIA) _ _,· OF
THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN (NOW)
TABANG, GUJGUINTO BULACAN BRANCH: PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC
ACT NO[.] 26 AND IN ADDITION, ISSUANCE OF RECONSTITUTED
OrVNER 'S DUPLICATE COPY OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLES

Rollo, pp. I 0- 28.

Id. at 30- 52 . The CA Decision dated March I 0, 2022 in CA-G.R. SP No. 152284 was penned by
Associate Justice Emily R. Alifio-Ge luz and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A.
Paredes and Raymond Reynold R. Lauigan of the Fourteenth Divisio n of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
Id. at 55--59. The CA Resolu tion dated August I 0, 2022 in CA-G.R. SP No. 152284 was penned by
Associate Justice Emily R. Alifio-Geluz and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A.
Paredes and Raymond Reyno ld R. Lauigan of the Former Fourteenth ( 14 th ) Division of the Court of
Appeals, Manila.
I d. at 9 i -96. The RTC Order dated November 4, 20 I I in LRC Case No. P-335-20 I I was penned by
Judge Guillermo Agloro of Branch 83 , Regional Trial Court, Malolos City, Bulacan.
id. at 41.

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution 2 G.R. No. 262854

THEREOF," and docketed as LRC Case No. P-657-2010 before the RTC,
Branch 21 of Malolos City, Bulacan (RTC Branch 21).6

The four unnamed TCTs include a portion of Lot 10-0 of subdivision

plan PSD-5550 located at Barangay Bulihan, Malolos City, Bulacan,
covered by an emancipation patent issued by the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) in the name of respondent Herly Bruno (Bruno). 7

The RTC Branch 21 issued an Order which dismissed LRC Case No.
P-657-2010, for lack of sources from which the certificates could be
reconstituted.8 The RTC also issued a Resolution which denied Felicisima's
motion for reconsideration. 9

Later that year, Felicisima, represented by Miguel B. Buendia, filed

again before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan a petition for the reconstitution of
the four unnamed certificates of title pertaining to the four lots subject of her
previous reconstitution petition in LRC Case No. P-657-2010. The second
petition for reconstitution was docketed as LRC Case No. P-335-2011 and
was initially raffled to RTC Branch 77, but the same was subsequently
transfened to RTC Branch 83 . 10

After trial, the RTC Branch 83 found that the pieces of evidence
substantially complied with the requirements set forth by Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 26. 11 Thus, the RTC granted the petition for reconstitution. 12 The
dispositive portion of the RTC Order states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby

GRANTED. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan, is hereby
ordered to Reconstitute Transfer Certificate of Title No. NI A covering four
(4) parcels of land identified as Lots 10-B, 10-C, 10-0 and 10-P covered by
Approved Subdivision Plan LRC-Psd-5550 approved by the Land
Registration Commission on March 31, 1959 on the basis of the technical
description of the property together with its accompanying survey plan
submitted by the petitioner. Further, this Court hereby declares as NULL
and VOID the lost owner's duplicate certificate copy of the subject
certificates of title; and hereby directs the Register of Deeds of Bulacan to
issue in lieu thereof second owner's duplicate copy of the said certificate of
title which shall contain a memorandum of fact that it is issued in place of
the lost duplicate ce1iificate, but shall in a ll respects be entitled to like faith
and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be recorded as sucb

6
Id. at 32-34.
Id. at 31-32.
Id. at 34.
9
Id. at 35.
JO
Id.
II
AN ACT PROV ID ING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR T HE RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS
CERTIFICATES OF T ITLE LOST OR DESTROY ED, September 25, 1946.
12
Rollo, pp. 94- 95.

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution ,.,
.) G.R. No. 262854

in accordance w ith Sec. 109 of P.D. 1529 otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree after payment of all necessary fees therefor.

so ORDERED. 13

The RTC Order which granted the petition for reconstitution became
final and executory on February 21, 2012, as evidenced by an Entry of
Judgment. 14

Pursuant to the aforesaid RTC Order, the Register of Deeds of

Bulacan reconstituted the four unnamed titles subject of Felicisima's petition
and issued subject TCT Nos. 039-RT20 1400044 l (N/A), 039-
RT2014000442 (NIA), 039-RT20 14000443 (NIA) and 039-RT2014000444
(N/A). is

After conducting his own investigation, Judge Guillermo P. Agloro

(Judge Agloro), then Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 83, Malolos City,
Bulacan reported to the Executive Judge that he discovered ce1tain
irregularities relative to the raffle of the petition for reconstitution of fo ur
TCTs docketed as LRC Case No. P-335-2011 , which led to the filing of
administrative charges against certain court personnel. 16 The case was
docketed as A.M. No. P-16-3550 (Formerly A.M. IPI No. 14-4252-P)
entitled "JUDGE GUILLERMO P. AGLORO, complainant, vs. COURT
INTERPRETER LESLIE BURGOS, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/CLERK III
ANNALIZA P. SANTIAGO, COURT STENOGRAPHER MARISSA M.
GARCIA, and CLERK III JULIETA FAJARDO, all of Regional Trial Court,
Branch 83, Malolos City, Bulacan, respondents." 17

On January 31, 2017, this Court promulgated a Decision in A.M. No.

P- l 6-3550 (Formerly A.M. IPI No. 14-4252-P) which found Annaliza P.
Santiago, Clerk III, and Marissa M. Garcia, Court Stenographer liable for
grave misconduct and dishonesty, among others, and dismissed them from
government service. 18

On August 30, 2017, Bruno fi led a petition for annulment of judgment

before the CA. 19

1, Id.
14
I d. at 98- 99.
15
Id. at 36.
16
Id. at 205-207.
17
Judge Agloro v. Burgos, 804 Phil. 621 (20 17) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
18
Id. at 637.
19
Rollo, pp. 57- 58.

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution 4 G.R. No. 262854

In the interim, Felicisma died and she was substituted by her heirs,
herein petitioners, who appointed Petronilio as their duly authorized
representative in the present case. 20

After due proceedings, the CA rendered its assailed Decision which

partly granted the petition for annulment of judgment. The CA held that the
heirs of Buendia failed to give Bruno notice of the proceedings in LRC Case
No. P-335-2011 as required under Sections 12 and 13 of R .A. No. 26. 21 By
reason of such non-compliance, the RTC fai led to acquire jurisdiction over
Felicisima's petition for reconstitution which rendered the entire proceedings
in LRC Case No. P-335-2011 as null and void. 22 Consequently, the CA
nullified the RTC Order which granted Felicisima's petition for
reconstitution. Neve11heless, the CA held that the cancellation of TCT Nos.
039-RT2014000441 (NIA), 039-RT20 14000442 (NIA), 039- RT20 14000443
(NIA) and 039-RT2014000444 (NIA) should be instituted in a direct
proceeding before the proper court. 23 The dispositive portion of the assailed
CA Decision is quoted hereunder:

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The

Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 83 has no
jurisdiction over respondent Felicisima Buendia's pet1t1on for
reconstitution in LRC Case No. P-335-2011. Accordingly, the Regional
Trial Court's Order dated November 4, 20 11 therein is hereby
NULLIFIED. The proper parties can fil e the appropriate petition for
cancellation of titles in the trial court which has jurisdiction to nullify the
four (4) certificates of title that were issued to Felicisima Buendia by
virtue of the aforementioned o rder of the Regional Trial Court.

SO ORDERED. 24 (Emphasis in the original).

The CA also issued a Resolution 25 which denied the motion for

reconsideration filed by the heirs of Buendia.

Undaunted, the heirs of Buendia filed the present petition and argued
in essence that the CA erred in granting the petition for annulment of
judgment because Bruno failed to prove the presence of any ground to
warrant the annulment of the RTC Order dated November 4, 2011 , which
allowed the reconstitution of TCT Nos. 039-RT20 14000441 (NIA), 039-
RT20 14000442 (NIA), 039- RT2014000443 (NIA) and 039-RT2014000444
(NIA) in LRC Case No. P-335-201 1. 26

20
Id. at 36.
21 Id. at 48.
22 Id.
23
Id. at 5 I.
24 Id.
25
Id. at 55- 59.
26
Id. at 16- 19.

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution 5 G.R. No. 262854

In his Comment, 27 Bruno maintains that the petition for reconstitution

was fatally flawed at the onset because Felicisima failed to comply with the
jurisdictional requirements under R.A. No. 26.

Issues

I.

Whether the CA erred in granting the petition for annulment of

judgment filed by Herly Bruno to nullify the reconstitution
proceedings in LRC Case No. P-33 5-2011; and

II.
Whether the reconstituted titles TCT Nos. 039-RT2014000441
(NIA), 039-RT2014000442 (NIA), 039- RT2014000443 (NIA)
and 039-RT2014000444 (NIA) should be cancelled

This Court's Ruling

The Petition is bereft of merit.

The RTC did not acquire jurisdiction

over the petition for reconstitution in
LRC Case No. P-335-2011.

At this juncture, it should be noted that the RTC Order which granted
the petition for reconstitution became final and executory on February 21,
20 12. 28 Consequently, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan reconstituted the
fou r unnamed titles subject of Felicisima's petition and issued TCT Nos.
039-RT2014000441 (NIA), 039-RT2014000442 (NIA), 039- RT2014000443
(NIA) and 039-RT2014000444 (NIA). 29

Indeed, "the reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration

in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting
the title of a person to a piece of land." Verily, "[t]he purpose of
the reconstitution of title is to have, after observing the procedures
prescribed by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been
when the loss or destruction occun-ed." 30

21 Id. at 202-2 12.

28
Id. at 98- 99.
29
Id. at 36.
,o Dy v. AIdea, 8 16 Phil. 657, 666(20 17) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Divis ionl

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution 6 G.R. No. 262854

The law governing judicial reconstitution of title is R.A. No. 26.

Section 15 of R.A. No. 26 provides when reconstitution of a title is allowed:

SEC. 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 tbe lost or destroyed certificate of
title, and that petitioner is the registered owner of the prope1iy 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 couti 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.

In Republic v. Spouses Bercede,3 1 this Court explained the nature and

requirements of judicial reconstitution of title in this wise:

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 am ended, is the special law which provides for
a specific procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens certificates of titl e 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 tria l
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 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 wav 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

:n GR. No. 214223, January I 0, 2023 [Per J. Kho, Jr. , En Banc], citing Deni/a v. Republic of the
Philippines, GR. No. 206077, July 15, 2020 [Pe r J. Gesmundo, Third Division].

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution 7 G.R. No. 262854

construction of the Rules does not apply to substantive requirements

specifically enumerated by a statute, especially so if matters affecting
jurisdiction are involved. ln 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 w ith 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. 32 (Emphasis in the original)

Reconstitution of title partakes of a land registration proceeding. 33 In

Rep. of the Phils. v. Santua, 34 this Court underscored that "[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 1s
proper. " 35

One of the requ1s1tes for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the
petition for reconstitution of titl e is that there must be "clear proof that the
title sought to be restored was indeed issued to the petitioner." 36 In this
respect, R.A. No. 26 enumerates certain sources which the law considers as
valid and sufficient bases for reconstitution of a transfer certificate of title:

SEC. 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such

of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the fo llowing
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;

32 Id.
33 Rep. of the Phils. v. Santua, 586 Phil. 29 1,297 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
586 Phil. 29 1 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
Id. at 299. (Citation omitted)
Id. at 297.

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution 8 G.R. No. 262854

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.

In this case, the heirs of Buendia sought for the reconstitution of the
four unnamed TCTs on the basis of a) Approved Subdivision Plan LRC-
PSD-5550 and the corresponding technical description thereof; and b) tax
declaration covering the subject lots,37 which fall under the term "any other
document" in Section 3(f) of R.A. No. 26.

Jurisprudence38 explains that the term "any other document" in Section

3(f) of R.A. No. 26, should be interpreted to refer to documents similar to
those mentioned in Sections 3 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), applying the principle of
ejusdem generis. As can be gathered therefrom, documents listed in Sections
3 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) are documents that had been issued or on file w ith the
Register of Deeds. The same documents also indicate the particulars of a
certificate of title or the circumstances surrounding its issuance.

The case at bench presents a similar factual backdrop in Santua, where

this Court was confronted with the issue "[s ]hould the courts grant a petition
for reconstitution of a certificate of title on the basis of a tax declaration,
survey plan and technical description?" 39

In Santua, this Court ruled that tax declarations, technical descriptions

and lot plans are not valid bases of reconstitution. 40 Elaborating on this point,
this Court thus reasoned :

37 Rollo, p. 41.
38
Rep. ofthe Phils. v. Sant11a, supra note 33, at 298 .
39
Id. at 293 .
40
Id. at 299.

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution 9 G.R. No. 262854

The tax declaration obviously does not serve as a valid basis

for reconstitution. For one, we ca1rnot safely rely on Tax Dec laration No.
15003-816 as evidence of the subject property being covered by TCT No.
T-22868 in the name of respondent because a tax declaration is executed
for taxation purposes only and is actually prepared by the alleged owner
himself. In fact, in Heirs of Eulalia Ragua v. Court of Appeals, the Court
pronounced that a tax declaration is not a reliable source for
the reconstitution of a certificate of title.

At most, the tax declaration can only be prima facie evidence of

possession or a 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 mere ly
determines whether a re-issuance of such title is proper.

As for the survey plan and technical descriptions, the Court has
prev iously dismissed the same as not the documents referred to in Section
3(f) but merely additional documents that should accompany the petition
for reconstitution as required under Section 12 of RA 26 and
Land Registration Commission Circular No. 35. Moreover, a survey plan
or technical description prepared at the instance of a party cannot be
considered in his favor, the same being self-serving. Fmther, in Lee v.
Republic, the Court declared the reconstitution based on a survey plan and
technical descriptions void for lack of factual support. 41 (C itations
omitted)

The ruling in Santua was also reiterated in the cases of Rep. of the
Phils. v. Heirs of Julio Ramos, 42 Rep. of the Phils. v. Pasicolan,43 Dela Paz
v. Rep. of the Phils. 44 and Rep. of the Phils. v. Spouses Fule. 45

Gu ided by the forego ing pronouncements, this Court finds that the
heirs of Buendia fai led to present a valid basis for the reconstitution of the
four unnamed TCTs. Without a valid source for reconstitution, it cannot be
ascertained whether the lost or destroyed TCTs have, in fact, been issued to
Felicis ima or her predecessor-in-interest and such titles were in force at the
t ime it was lost or destroyed, w hich is necessary for the RTC to acquire
jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution. Perforce, the petition for
reconstitution should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Even on the assumption that the pet1tton for reconstitution was

anchored on valid sources, the heirs of Buendia fai led to observe the
procedure under Sections 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26, which laid down the
guidelines for the j ud icial reconstitution of orig inal 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 the same
law.

41
Id. at 299-300.
627 Phil. 123 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
758 Phil. 121 (2015) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
44 820 Phil. 907 (2017) [Per J. Mar tires, Third Division].
-15
G.R. No. 239273, March 2, 2020 [Per J . De los Santos, Second D ivision].

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution G.R. No. 262854

Section 12 of R.A. No. 26 describes the requirements for a petition

for reconstitution. If reads:

Sec. 12. Petitions for reconstitution fro m sources enumerated in

sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall
be filed with the proper Court of First Instance, by the registered owner,
his assigns, or any person having an interest in the property. The Petition
shall state or contain, among other things, the following[:] (a) that the
owner's duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed ; (b)
that no co-owner's, Mortgagee' s or lessee's duplicate had been issued, or,
if any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed; (c) the
location, area and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and
description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which do not belong
to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of
s uch buildings or improvements; (e) the nan1es 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 prope1ty; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments
affecting the property have been presented for registration, or if there be
any, the registration thereof has not been accomplished, as yet. All the
documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in
support of the petition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed
with the same: Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made
exclusively from sources enumerated in section 2 (f) or 3 (f) of this Act,
the petition shall be further accompanied w ith 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.

Relatedly, Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 prescribes the requirements for a

notice of hearing of the petition, which shall also be sent to the occupant or
person in possession of the property:

Sec. 13. The court sha ll 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 bui lding and of the municipal building of the
municipality or city in which the land is situated, at least thi rty days prior lo
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 the rein 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 nan1e 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.

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution 11 G.R. No. 262854

To recall, the four subject TCTs include a portion of Lot l 0-0 of

subdivision plan PSD-5550 covered by an emancipation patent issued by the
DAR in the name of Bruno. 46 Bruno, as the grantee of an emancipation
patent, is presumed to be in possession of the subject property, yet he did not
receive any actual notice of the proceedings in LRC Case No. P-335-2011. 47

It is beyond cavil that under Sections 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26, the
occupants, owners of the adjoining properties and all other interested parties
should be notified of the petition for reconstitution. In Deni/a v. Republic,48
this Court underscored the importance of mailing the notice to the actual
occupants of the property covered by the certificates of title to be
reconstituted: "(a) to safeguard against spurious and unfounded land
ownership claims; (b) to apprise all interested parties of the existence of
such action; and (c) to give them enough time to intervene in the
proceeding." 49 In Deni/a, this Court stressed that non-compliance with the
notice of hearing requirement is fatal and the trial court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution. 50

Along this line, in Castillo v. Rep. of the Phils. ,51 this Court belabored
that the manner by which courts obtain jurisdiction to hear cases involving
reconstitution of title is anchored on a strict compliance with the
requirements of R.A. No. 26, as borne by the fact that:

Liberal construction of the Rules of Court does not apply to land registration
cases. Indeed, to further underscore the mandatory character of these
jurisdictional requirements, the Rules of Co urt do not apply to land
registration cases. In all cases where the authority of the cour ts to proceed
is conferred by a statute, and when the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is
prescribed by a statute, the mode of proceeding is mandatory, and must be
strictly complied with, or the proceed ing will be utterly void . When the trial
court lacks j urisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it lacks authority over
the whole case and all its aspects. All the proceedings before the trial court,
including its order granting the petition for reconstitution, are void for lack
of jurisdiction. 52 (Citations om itted)

Moreover, "[s]trict observance of the rules is vital to prevent parties

from exploiting reconstitution proceedings as a quick but illegal way to
obtain Torrens certificate of titles over parcels of land which turn out to be
already covered by existing titles." 53

46
Rollo, pp. 3 1- 32.
47
Id. at 44-46.
48
G. R. No. 206077, July 15, 2020 [Per J. Gesmundo, Third Division].
49
Id. (Citation omitted)
50
Id.
51
667 Phil. 729 (201 1) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
52
Id. at 746.
53 Republic v. Santua, supra note 33, at 300.

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution 12 GR. No. 262854

All told, the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 83 did not acquire
jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution in LRC Case No. P-335-
2011 due to the following reasons: a) the heirs of Buendia failed to present
a valid basis for reconstitution of the subject TCTs which violated Section 3
of R.A. No. 26; and b) they failed to give Bruno, the occupant or person in
possession of the property, a notice of hearing which violated Sections 12
and 13 of R.A. No. 26. Accordingly, the RTC Order dated November 4,
2011 which led to the reconstitution of TCT Nos. 039-RT2014000441
(NIA), 039-RT2014000442 (NIA), 039- RT2014000443 (NIA) and 039-
RT2014000444 (NIA) in LRC Case No. P-335-2011 is null and void for
lack of jurisdiction.

A petition for annulment of judgment

under Rule 47 is a direct attack to
assail a void judgment. 54

A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is a void

judgment which has no legal and binding effect. 55 It is a complete nullity
from its inception which cannot affect, impair, or create rights, nor can any
rights be based on it. "All proceedings founded on the void judgment are
themselves regarded as invalid and ineffective for any purpose." 56

In Titan Dragon Properties Corp., 57 this Com1 held that one of the
remedies to assail a void judgment is to institute a direct attack via a
petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47.

Annulment of judgment under Rule 4 7 is a recourse which

presupposes the filing of a separate and original action to annul a final and
executory judgment. 58 It is an extraordinary remedy and equitable in
character which is permitted only "when other remedies are wanting, and
only if the judgment, final order, or final resolution sought to be annulled
was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction, or through extrinsic fraud." 59
Section 2, Rule 4 7 of the Rules of Court provides for the grounds for
annulment of judgment which are: (1) extrinsic fraud; and (2) lack of
jurisdiction. Jurisprudence also recognizes the denial of due process of law
as an additional ground to annul ajudgment. 60 Under Section 7, Rule 47 of
the Rules of Court, a judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned
judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null and void.

54
Titan Dragon Properties Corp. v. Veloso-Ga/enzoga, April 28, 2021 [Per J. Zalameda, First Division].
55 i d.
56
id. (Citation omitted)
51 Id.
58
Frias v. Alcay de, 826 Phil. 7 13, 731 - 732 (2018) [Per J. Tijam, First Divis ion].
59
Thomas v. Trono, G.R. No. 24 1032 (Resolution), March 15, 2021 [Per J. Lopez, M., Second Division].
(Citation omitted)
60 ld.

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution 13 G.R. No. 262854

At this juncture, it is well to note that the CA declared the

reconstitution proceedings in LRC Case No. P-335-2011 null and void due
to lack of jurisdiction of the RTC, but deferred to cancel the reconstituted
TCTs based on Section 48 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529,61 which
prohibits a collateral attack on a Torrens title. Section 48 of P .D. No. 1529
states:

Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A ce1tificate of

title shall not be subj ect to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified,
or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.62

Indeed, the validity of a Torrens title can only be assailed in a direct

proceeding. T his rule is intended "to guarantee the integrity of land titles and
to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and
recognized," 63 so that the public can rely on the face of the Torrens title and
dispense with the need of inquiring further as to the ownership of the
property.64 Otherwise, public confidence in the system would be eroded and
inevitably spawn numerous land conflicts that are "complex than they are
now and possibly also more abrasive, if not even violent." 65

In Ono v. Lim, 66 this Court distinguished a direct attack from a

collateral attack in this way:

An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title w hen its

objective is to nullify the title, thereby challenging the j udgment pursuant to
which the title was decreed. ·The attack is direct when the objective is to
annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other
hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a
different reliet an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an
incident thereof. 67 (Citations omitted).

Here, Bruno filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA

to have the RTC's Order dated November 4, 20 11, which led to the issuance
of the reconstituted TCTs null and void on the ground oflack of jurisdiction.
Section 7, Rule 47, provides that a judgment of annulment shall set aside the
questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null
and void. Consequently, seeking for an annulment of judgment constitutes
"a direct attack on the title because it challenges the judgment decree of
title." 68 Hence, fi ling an annulment of judgment to challenge the issuance of
the reconstituted TCTs is not a violation of Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529.

61
RoL!o, pp. 49- 5 1.
62
Othe rw ise known as PROPERTY REG ISTRATION DECREE, JUNE 11 , 1978.
c,3
Caga1ao v. Almonle, 719 Phi l. 24 1, 253 (20 I 3) [Per J. Mend oza, Third Division].
64
I d.
65
Id. at 255.
66
628 Phil. 4 18 (20 I0) [Per J. Bersami n, First Division] .
67
Id. at 425-426.
68
De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp., 748 Phil. 706,738 (20 14) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

B(126)URES - more -
 Resolution 14 GR. No. 262854

Accordingly, the CA should have declared the reconstituted TCTs null and
void.

FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition is DENIED. The CA Decision

dated March 10, 2022 and Resolution dated August 10, 2022 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 152284 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Regional Trial
Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 83 has no jurisdiction over
Felicisima Buendia's petition for reconstitution in LRC Case No. P-335-
2011. Accordingly, the Regional Trial Court's Order dated November 4,
2011 therein is hereby NULLIFIED and the petition for reconstitution in
LRC Case No. P-335-2011 is DISMISSED. Consequently, TCT Nos. 039-
RT2014000441 (NIA), 039-RT2014000442 (NIA), 039-RT2014000443
(NIA) and 039-RT2014000444 (NIA) are declared NULL and VOID.

SO ORDERED." (Leonen, SAJ, on leave, but left a vote pursuant to

Section 4, Rule 12 of the SC Internal Rules; Lazaro-Javier, J., Acting
Chairperson)

By authority of the Court:

UAZON
Clerk of Court/! 11/:z?J
'I. j NOV LUd

B(126)URES - more -
Resolution 15 G.R. No. 262854
October 4, 2023

*GORRICET A AFRICA CAUTON & SAAVEDRA (reg)

Counsel for Petitioners
15/ F, Strata 2000 Building
F. Ortigas Jr. Road, Ortigas Center
Pasig C ity

*CARPIO & CARPIO LAW OFFfCES (reg)

Counsel for Respondent
Unit 903-A, West Tower, PSEC, Excha nge Road
Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1600

HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg)

Reg ional Trial Court, Branch 83
Malo los City, Bulacan
(LRC Case No. P-335-20 I I)

JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)

Supreme Cou,i, Manila

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)

LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
(For uploading pursuant to A.M . No. 12-7-SC]

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)

PHILIPPINE J UDIC IAL ACADEMY (x)
Supreme Court, Manila

COURT OF APPEALS (x)

Ma. Orosa Street
Ermita, I 000 Manila
CA-G.R. SP No. 152284

*with a copy of the March I 0, 2022 CA Decision

Please notify the Court of any change in your ?ddress.
GR262854. I 0/04/20238( l 26)URES /ctf)•