Republic vs. Heirs of Spouses Sanchez

7/23/2019 Republic vs. Heirs of Spouses Sanchez

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-heirs-of-spouses-sanchez 1/7

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 212388 December 10, 2014

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,vs.HEIRS OF SPOUSES DONTO SNCHE! "#$ %UN &ENESES, re're(e#)e$ b*RODOLFO S. GUINLDO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

+ELSCO, %R., J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule ! of the Rules of Court see"in# thereversal and settin# aside of the De$ision% dated Nove&'er (, )*%+ and Resolution dated pril )-, )*% of the Court or ppeals in C/.R. CV No. - 0)*, entitled Heirs of theSpouses Donato San$he1 and 2uana 3eneses, represented '4 Rodolfo S. #uinaldo v.

Repu'li$ of the Philippines.

Respondents filed an a&ended petition for re$onstitution of Ori#inal Certifi$ate of Title5OCT6 No. !+7% that $overed 8ot No. (! of the Cadastral Surve4 of Da#upan, pursuantto Repu'li$ $t 5R6 No. )7. ) In said petition, respondents &ade the followin# alle#ations9

%. That OCT No. !+7% was issued in the na&e of their prede$essorininterest,the spouses San$he1, pursuant to De$ree No. %(%) issued in relation to aDe$ision dated 3ar$h %), %-+* of the then Court of :irst Instan$e 5C:I6 ofPan#asinan;

). Said lot was de$lared for ta<ation purposes in the na&e of the spouses

San$he1 and that when the latter died intestate, the4 e<e$uted a Deed ofE<tra=udi$ial Partition. Said Deed, however, $ould not 'e re#istered 'e$ause theowner>s $op4 of OCT No. !+7% was &issin#; and

+. The Offi$es of the Re#ister of Deeds 5RD6 of 8in#a4en and Da#upan,Pan#asinan issued a $ertifi$ation that the $opies of De$ree No. %(%) and OCTNo. !+7% $ould not 'e found a&on# its re$ords.

:indin# the petition suffi$ient in for& and su'stan$e, the C:I issued an Order dated 2une), )**% #ivin# due $ourse thereto and ordered the re?uisite pu'li$ation thereof, a&on#others. 3eanwhile, the d&inistrator of the 8and Re#istration uthorit4 58R6 re?uestedthe trial $ourt, whi$h the latter #ranted throu#h its O$to'er %%, )**) Order, tore?uire

respondents to su'&it the followin# do$u&ents9

%. Certifi$ation fro& the RD that OCT No. !+7% was either lost or destro4ed;

). Copies of the te$hni$al des$ription of the lot $overed '4 OCT No. !+7%,$ertified '4 the authori1ed offi$er of the 8and 3ana#e&ent @ureauA8R; and

+. Sepia fil& plan of the su'=e$t lot prepared '4 the dul4 li$ensed #eodeti$en#ineer.

Due to diffi$ulties en$ountered in se$urin# said do$u&ents, respondents &oved for thear$hivin# of the $ase, whi$h &otion was #ranted '4 the trial $ourt. It was later revived

when respondents finall4 se$ured the said do$u&ents.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/dec2014/gr_212388_2014.html#fnt1







The petition was pu'lished anew and trial later ensued, with the followin# do$u&entssu'&itted '4 respondents in eviden$e, to wit9

%. De$ision dated 3ar$h %), %-+* 5written in Spanish6 in Cadastral Case No. *,/8RO Cad. Re$ord No. -)* ad=udi$atin# 8ot No. (! in favor of the spousesDonato San$he1 and 2uana 3eneses whi$h was $ertified '4 the 8R as a true$op4 of the ori#inal; and

). Certified true $op4 of the Re#istrar>s Inde< Card $ontainin# the notation thatOCT No. !+7% $overin# 8ot No. (! was listed under the na&e of DonatoSan$he1.

On 2anuar4 %%, )**(, the 8R su'&itted its Report pertainin# to the le#alit4 of there$onstitution sou#ht in favor of respondents, the relevant portions of whi$h, as ?uoted '4the C in the assailed De$ision, are as follows9

5)6 :ro& @oo" No. +! of the Re$ord @oo" of Cadastral 8ots on file at the

Cadastral De$ree Se$tion, this uthorit4, it appears that De$ree No. %(%)% wasissued to 8ot No. (!, Da#upan Cadastre on 2anuar4 %), %-+%, in CadastralCase No. *, /8RO Cad. Re$ord No. -)*. Cop4 of the said de$ree, however, isno lon#er availa'le in this uthorit4.

5+6 The plan and te$hni$al des$ription of lot (!, $ad )%0, Case +, Da#upanCadastre, were verified $orre$t'4 this uthorit4 to represent the aforesaid lot andthe sa&e have 'een approved under 58R6 PR*0*%!!!R pursuant to theprovisions of Se$tion %) of Repu'li$ $t No. )7.

On 2une +*, )**(, however, the Re#ional Trial Court 5RTC6 rendered itsDe$ision+ dis&issin# the petition for la$" of suffi$ient eviden$e, rulin# that R No. )7 onl4

applies in $ases where the issuan$e of the OCT sou#ht to 'e re$onstituted has 'eenesta'lished, onl4 that it was lost or destro4ed. Bhile a$"nowled#in# the e<isten$e ofDe$ree No. %(%)% whi$h was issued for the lot su'=e$t of the $ase, the RTCnevertheless held that there is no esta'lished proof that OCT No. !+7% was issued '4virtue of said De$ree.

##rieved, respondents &oved for re$onsideration of the a'ove De$ision, insistin# thatthere was suffi$ient eviden$e to prove the issuan$e of OCT No. !+7%. Instead of filin# a$o&&ent thereto, the RD of Da#upan Cit4 &anifested that OCT No. !+7% had 'eensuperseded '4 TCT No. %*)*) issued to a $ertain Rufino 3arias with notation that theland it $overed was ori#inall4 re#istered on the )-th da4 of 2anuar4, %-+%F < < < as OCTNo. !+7% pursuant to De$ree No. %(%)% issued in /.8.R.O. Cadastral Re$ord No.-)*. :urther&ore, TCT No. %*)*) was $an$elled '4 TCT No. +7! and later '4 TCTNo. (*0-) in the na&e of Da#upan Do$tors Villaflor 3e&orial Hospital, 'oth 'earin# anote whi$h reads, The na&e of the re#istered owner of OCT No. !+7% is not availa'leas per $ertifi$ation of the RD of 8in#a4enF, dated u#ust %(, %-(), entries nos. %*0%!and %*0%7, respe$tivel4.

Disa#reein# with the trial $ourt>s findin#s and holdin# that 8ot (! was =udi$iall4 awardedto respondents> prede$essorininterest in Cadastral Case No. *, /8RO Cad. Re$ordNo. -)*,the C reversed the RTC rulin# on appeal and dire$ted the re$onstitution of OCTNo. !+7% in favor of herein respondents.

The C held that even thou#h respondents were una'le to present the do$u&entsne$essar4 for re$onstitution of title as enu&erated under Se$tion ) of R No. )7,parti$ularl4 5a6 to 5e6 thereof, the do$u&entar4 pie$es of eviden$e presented '4respondents fall under para#raph 5f6 of said provision and are suffi$ient to warrant the





re$onstitution of OCT No. !+7%. In this re#ard, the C e&phasi1ed that the $ertifi$atesof title whi$h the RD &anifested to have superseded OCT No. !+7% all 'ear the notationto the effe$t that 8ot No. (! was ori#inall4 re#istered on 2anuar4 )-, %-+% as OCT No.!+7% pursuant to De$ree No. %(%)% issued in /.8.R.O. Cadastral Re$ord No. -)*, thena&e of the re#istered owner of whi$h is not availa'le. This, to the C, su'stantiall4$o&plies with the re?uire&ent enun$iated in Repu'li$ v. Tuastu&'an that the do$u&ents

&ust $o&e fro& offi$ial sour$es whi$h re$o#ni1e the ownership of the owner and hisprede$essorsininterest.

Its &otion for re$onsideration havin# 'een denied '4 the appellate $ourt in the assailedResolution, petitioner lod#ed the instant petition ?uestionin# the suffi$ien$4 of thedo$u&ents presented '4 respondents to warrant the re$onstitution of the alle#ed lostOCT No. !+7%.

Be resolve to #rant the petition.

The Court a#rees with the trial $ourt that no $lear and $onvin$in# proof has 'eenaddu$ed that OCT No. !+7% was issued '4 virtue of De$ree No. %(%)%. The De$isiondated 3ar$h )%, %-+* and the Re#istrar>s Inde< Card $ontainin# the notation on OCT No.!+7% do not $ite nor &ention that De$ree No. %(%)% was issued to support theissuan$e of OCT No. !+7%. t this point, it is well to e&phasi1e that a petition forre$onstitution of lost or destro4ed OCT re?uires, as a $ondition pre$edent, that an OCThas indeed 'een issued, for o'vious reasons.

ssu&in# ar#uendo that respondents were a'le to suffi$ientl4 prove the e<isten$e ofOCT No. !+7% $onsiderin# the totalit4 of the eviden$e presented, the Court finds thatre$onstitution thereof is still not warranted, appl4in# Se$tion %! of R No. )7. Saidprovision reads9

Se$tion %!. If the $ourt, after hearin#, finds that the do$u&ents presented, as supported'4 parole eviden$e or otherwise, are suffi$ient and proper to warrant the re$onstitution ofthe lost or destro4ed $ertifi$ate of title, and that the petitioner is the re#istered owner ofthe propert4 or has an interest therein, that the said $ertifi$ate oftitle was in for$e at theti&e it was lost or destro4ed, and that the des$ription, area and 'oundaries of thepropert4 are su'stantiall4 the sa&e as those $ontained in the lost or destro4ed $ertifi$ateof title, an order of re$onstitution shall 'e issued. < < <

s e<pli$itl4 stated in the a'ove?uoted provision, 'efore a $ertifi$ate of title whi$h has'een lost or destro4ed &a4 'e re$onstituted, it &ust first 'e proved '4 the $lai&ants thatsaid $ertifi$ate of title was still in for$e at the ti&e it was lost or destro4ed, a&on# others.Here, the &ere e<isten$e of TCT No. %*)*), later $an$elled '4 TCT No. +7!, whi$h, inturn, was superseded '4 TCT No. (*0-), whi$h 'ear the notations9

ori#inall4 re#istered on the )-th da4 of 2anuar4, %-+%F < < < as OCT No. !+7% pursuantto De$ree No. %(%)% issued in /.8.R.O. Cadastral Re$ord No. -)*.

The na&e of the re#istered owner of OCT No. !+7% is not availa'le as per $ertifi$ationof the RD of 8in#a4enF, dated u#ust %(, %-(), entries nos. %*0%! and %*0%7,respe$tivel4.

$learl4 shows that the OCT whi$h respondents see" to 'e re$onstituted is no lon#er infor$e, renderin# the pro$edure, if #ranted, a &ere superfluit4.

dditionall4, if indeed OCT No. !+7% was lost or destro4ed, it is ne$essar4 that the RDissue a $ertifi$ation that su$h was in for$e at the ti&e of its alle#ed loss or destru$tion.Definitel4, the RD $annot issue su$h $ertifi$ation 'e$ause of the dearth of re$ords in





support of the alle#ed OCT No. !+7% in its file. The presentation of alle#ed derivativetitlesGGTCT No. %*)*), TCT No. +7! and TCT No. (*0-)GGwill not suffi$e to repla$ethis $ertifi$ation 'e$ause the titles do not authenti$ate the issuan$e of OCT No. !+7%havin# 'een issued '4 the RD without an4 'asis fro& its offi$ial re$ords. s a &atter offa$t, it isa wonder how the derivative titles were issued when the e<isten$e of OCT No.!+7% $ould not 'e esta'lished 'ased on the RD>s re$ords. The RD failed to e<plain how

it was a'le to &a"e an annotation of the ori#inal re#istration of the lot under OCT No.!+7% when respondents are now as"in# for its re$onstitution. It is also hi#hl4 suspi$iouswh4 respondents are as"in# the re$onstitution of OCT No. !+7% when, supposedl4, ithas alread4 'een $an$elled and new titles have alread4 'een issued 'ased on transferspurportedl4 &ade '4 respondents. 8astl4, of what use is the re$onstituted OCT No.!+7% when the lot has alread4 'een transferred to other persons. It will pra$ti$all4 'e ofno value or worth to respondents.

If the respondents still insist on the re$onstitution of OCT No. !+7%, the properpro$edure is to file a petition for the $an$ellation and reissuan$e of De$ree No. %(%)%followin# the opinion of then 8R d&inistrator @enedi$to @. lep. In said Opinion, d&inistrator lep e<plained the reason for the ne$essit4 of the petition for $an$ellation

of the old de$ree and its reissuan$e, thus9

%. nder the pre&ises, the $orre$tpro$eedin# is a petition for $an$ellation of the oldde$ree, reissuan$e of de$ree and for issuan$e of OCT pursuant to that reissuedde$ree.

In the land&ar" de$ision of Teofilo Ca$ho vs. Court of ppeals, et al., /.R. No. %)++7%,3ar$h +, %--0, our Supre&e Court had affir&ed the effi$a$4 of filin# a petition for$an$ellation of the old de$ree; the reissuan$e of su$h de$ree and the issuan$e of OCT$orrespondin# to that reissued de$ree.

Thus, petitioner filed an o&ni'us &otion for leave of $ourt to file and to ad&it a&ended

petition, 'ut this was denied. Petitioner elevated the &atter to his Court 5do$"eted asTeofilo Ca$ho vs. Hon. 3anindiara P. 3an#otara, /.R. No. (!-!6 'ut we resolved tore&and the $ase to the lower $ourt, orderin# the latter to a$$ept the a&ended petitionand to hear it as one for reissuan$e of de$reeunder the followin# #uidelines9

Considerin# the do$trines in Sta. na vs. 3enla, % SCR %)-0 5%-7%6 and Heirs ofCristo'al 3ar$os vs. de @anuvar, )! SCR +%! %-7(F, and the lower $ourt findin#s thatthe de$rees had in fa$t 'een issued, the o&ni'us &otion should have 'een heard as a&otion to reissue the de$rees in order to have a 'asis for the issuan$e of the titles andthe respondents 'ein# heard in their opposition.

Considerin# the fore#oin#, we resolve to order the lower $ourt to a$$ept the a&ended

petition su'=e$t to the private respondent>s 'ein# #iven the opportunit4 to answer and topresent their defenses. The eviden$e alread4 on re$ord shall 'e allowed to stand 'utopportunit4 to $ontrovert e<istin# eviden$e shall 'e #iven the parties.

:ollowin# the prin$iple laid down in the a'ove?uoted $ase, a ?uestion &a4 'e as"ed9Bh4 should a de$ree 'e $an$eled and reissued when the sa&e is valid and inta$tBithin the $onte<t of this dis$ussion, there is no dispute that a de$ree has 'een validl4issued. nd in fa$t, in so&e instan$es, a $op4 of su$h de$ree is inta$t. Bhat is not "nownis whether or not an OCT is issued pursuant to that de$ree. If su$h de$ree is valid, wh4 isthere a need to have it $an$elled and reissued

#ain, we invite 4ou 'a$" to the hi#hli#hted provision of Se$tion +- of PD %!)- whi$hstates that9 The ori#inal $ertifi$ate of title shall 'e a true $op4 of the de$ree ofre#istration. This provision is si#nifi$ant 'e$ause it $onte&plates an OCT whi$h is an



e<a$t repli$a of the de$ree. If the old de$ree will not 'e $an$eled and no new de$reeissued, the $orrespondin# OCT issued toda4 will 'ear the si#nature of the present d&inistrator while the de$ree upon whi$h it was 'ased shall 'ear the si#nature of thepast d&inistrator. This is not $onsistent with the $lear intention of the law whi$h statesthat the OCT shall 'e true $op4 of the de$ree of re#istration. Ostensi'l4, therefore, the$an$ellation of the old de$ree and the issuan$e of a new one is ne$essar4.

). Repu'li$ $t No. )7 for re$onstitution of lost OCT will not lie.

It is so 'asi$ under Repu'li$ $t No. )7 that the sa&e shall onl4 appl4 in $ases where theissuan$e of OCT has 'een esta'lished, onl4 that it was lost or destro4ed under$ir$u&stan$es provided for under said law. #ain, within the $onte<t of this dis$ussion,R No. )7 will not appl4 'e$ause in this $ase, there is no esta'lished proof that an OCThad 'een issued. In other words, the appli$a'ilit4 of R No. )7 hin#es on the e<isten$e of priorl4 issued OCT.

Bill re$onstitution of De$ree lie then #ain, the answer is no. There is no showin# thatthe de$ree is lost. In fa$t, it $an 'e esta'lished that a de$ree, pursuant either to a$adastral pro$eedin# or an ordinar4 land re#istration $ase, has 'een issued. ndere<istin# land re#istration laws and =urispruden$e, there is no su$h thin# as re$onstitutionof a de$ree. R No. )7 $annot li"ewise 'e the 'asis 'e$ause the latter refers to an OCTand not a de$ree of re#istration.

+. :or as lon# as a de$ree has not 4et 'een trans$ri'ed 5entered in re#istration 'oo" ofthe RD6, the $ourt whi$h ad=udi$ated and ordered for the issuan$e of su$h de$ree$ontinues to 'e $lothed with =urisdi$tion.

This &atter has 'een settled in several $ases, to na&e a few9

There is nothin# in the law that li&its the period within whi$h the $ourt &a4 order orissue a de$ree. 1âwphi1 The reason is what is stated in the $onsideration of the se$ondassi#n&ent error, that the =ud#&ent is &erel4 de$larator4 in $hara$ter and does not needto 'e asserted or enfor$ed a#ainst the adverse part4. :urther&ore, the issuan$e of ade$ree is a &inisterial dut4 'oth of the =ud#e and of the 8and Re#istration Co&&ission;failure of the $ourt or of the $ler" to issue the de$ree for the reason that no &otiontherefore has 'een filed $an not pre=udi$e the owner, or the person in who& the land isordered to 'e re#istered.

Be fail to understand the ar#u&ents of the appellant in support of the a'oveassi#n&ent, e<$ept in so far as it supports his theor4 that after a de$ision in a landre#istration $ase has 'e$o&e final, it &a4 not 'e enfor$ed after the lapse of a period of%* 4ears, e<$ept '4 another pro$eedin# to enfor$e the =ud#&ent &a4 'e enfor$ed within! 4ears '4 &otion, and after five 4ears 'ut within %* 4ears, '4 an a$tion 5Se$. 7, Rule+-6. This provision of the Rules refers to $ivil a$tions and is not appli$a'le to spe$ialpro$eedin#s, su$h as a land re#istration $ase. This is so 'e$ause a part4 in a $ivil a$tion&ust i&&ediatel4 enfor$e a =ud#&ent that is se$ured as a#ainst the adverse part4. ndhis failure to a$t to enfor$e the sa&e within a reasona'le ti&e as provided in the Rules&a"es the de$ision unenfor$ea'le a#ainst the losin# part4. 5Sta. na vs. 3enla, % SCR%)-0 and Heirs of Cristo'al 3ar$os vs. de @anuvar, )! SCR +%!6 :urther&ore, in/o&e1 v. Court of ppeals, No. 80000*, De$e&'er %!, %-((, %7( SCR !*+, theSupre&e Court de$lared that9

. . . nli"e ordinar4 $ivil a$tions, the ad=udi$ation of land in a $adastral or landre#istration pro$eedin# does not 'e$o&e final, in the sense of in$ontroverti'ilit45,6 untilafter the e<piration of one 5%6 4ear after 5si$6 the entr4 of the final de$ree of re#istration.This Court, in several de$isions, has held that as lon# as a final de$ree has not 'een



entered '4 the 8and Re#istration Co&&ission 5now N8TDR6 and the period of one 5%64ear has not elapsed fro& the date of entr4 of su$h de$ree, the title is not finall4ad=udi$ated and the de$ision in the re#istration pro$eedin# $ontinues to 'e under the$ontrol and sound dis$retion of the $ourt renderin# it. 5lso $ited in 8a'arada v. C andRa&os v. Rodri#ue1, ) SCR %(, )+)6

. The heirs of the ori#inal ad=udi$ate &a4 file the petition in representation of thede$edent and the reissued de$ree shall still 'e under the na&e of the ori#inalad=udi$ate.

It is a well settled rule that su$$ession operates upon the death of the de$edent. Theheirs shall then su$$eed into the shoes of the de$edent. The heirs shall have the le#alinterest in the propert4, thus, the4 $annot 'e prohi'ited fro& filin# the ne$essar4 petition.

s the ter& $onnotes, a &ere reissuan$e of the de$ree &eans that the new de$ree shall'e issued whi$h shall, in all respe$ts, 'e the sa&e as that of the ori#inal de$ree. Nothin#in the said de$ree shall 'e a&ended nor &odified; hen$e, it &ust 'e under the na&e ofthe ori#inal ad=udi$atee.

In su&, fro& the fore#oin#, it &a4 'e safel4 $on$luded that for as lon# as the de$reeissued in an ordinar4 or $adastral re#istration $ase has not 4et 'een entered, &eanin#, ithas not 4et 'een trans$ri'ed in the Re#istration @oo" of the $on$erned Re#istrar ofDeeds, su$h de$ree has not 4et attained finalit4 and therefore &a4 still 'e su'=e$t to$an$ellation in the sa&e land re#istration $ase. pon $an$ellation of su$h de$ree, thede$ree owner 5ad=udi$atee or his heirs6 &a4 then pra4 for the issuan$e of a new de$reenu&'er and, $onse?uentl4, pra4 for the issuan$e of an ori#inal $ertifi$ate of title 'ased onthe newl4 issued de$ree of re#istration.

s su$h, Be find no reason to distur' the rulin# of the R TC that re$onstitution of OCTNo. !+7% is not warranted under the $ir$u&stan$es, al'eit on a different #round.

BHERE:ORE, pre&ises $onsidered, the instant petition is here'4 /RNTED. $$ordin#l4, the De$ision of the Court of ppeals dated Nove&'er (, )%*+ and itsResolution dated pril )-, )*% in C/.R. CV No. -0)* are here'4 REVERSED andSET SIDE. The De$ision of the Re#ional Trial Court, @ran$h * in Da#upan Cit4 in Cad.Case No. )**%**+D is here'4 REINSTTED.

SO ORDERED.

PRESBITERO %. +ELSCO, %R. sso$iate 2usti$e

BE CONCR9

DIOSDDO &. PERLT sso$iate 2usti$e

&RTIN S. +ILLR&, %R. sso$iate 2usti$e

BIEN+ENIDO L. REES sso$iate 2usti$e

ESTEL &. PERLS-BERNBE sso$iate 2usti$e

T T E S T T I O N



I attest that the $on$lusions in the a'ove De$ision had 'een rea$hed in $onsultation'efore the $ase was assi#ned to the writer of the opinion of the CourtJs Division.

PRESBITERO %. +ELSCO, %R. sso$iate 2usti$eChairperson

C E R T I : I C T I O N

Pursuant to Se$tion %+, rti$le VIII of the Constitution and the Division ChairpersonJs ttestation, I $ertif4 that the $on$lusions in the a'ove De$ision had 'een rea$hed in$onsultation 'efore the $ase was assi#ned to the writer of the opinion of the CourtJsDivision.

&RI LOURDES P.. SERENOChief 2usti$e

Foo)#o)e(

K dditional &e&'er per raffle dated De$e&'er -, )*%.

% Penned '4 sso$iate 2usti$e Lenaida T. /alapate8a#uilles and $on$urred in '4 sso$iate 2usti$es 3arlene /on1alesSison and &4 C. 8a1aro2avier.

) n $t Providin# a Spe$ial Pro$edure for the Re$onstitution of TorrensCertifi$ates of Title 8ost or Destro4ed.

+ Rendered '4 2ud#e Ro'ert O. Rudio.

/.R. No. %0+)%*, pril ), )**-, !(7 SCR 7**.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/dec2014/gr_212388_2014.html#rnt1












Republic vs. Heirs of Spouses Sanchez

Documents

Transcript of Republic vs. Heirs of Spouses Sanchez