Republic of the Philippines vs. Concepcion Lorenzo, et al., G.R. No.

172338,
December 10, 2012
DOCTRINE: The party praying for the reconstitution of a title must show that he had
(1) sought to secure documents stated in Section 2, paragraphs (a) to (e) of
Republic Act No. 26 and (2) failed to find them before allowing the presentation of
"other documents" as evidence in substitution.
FACTS: The heirs of Pedro Fontanilla, herein respondents, filed a petition for
reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certificate of title. According to the
respondents, the owners duplicate copy was eaten by white ants and the copy of
Register of Deeds Isabela is no longer available as the same was included burned
and lost beyond recovery when office was razed by fire sometime in 1976. Also, for
taxation purposes, land covered by the same OCT no. is still under the name of the
respondents grandmother. In addition, land was free from lien and encumbrance.
To support said petition, the respondents submitted the plan of the property,
certified technical description and certification from LRA as to the non-availability of
a copy of DECREE NO. 650254, and one of the respondents, Fontanilla-Gozum,
testified that land was acquired by her father Pedro Fontanilla and her mother,
respondent Lorenzo, during their marriage, from their grandmother as evidenced by
a deed of sale.
Lower court granted petition. The petitioner appealed arguing, among others, that
the alleged loss or destruction of the owners duplicate copy of OCT has no
evidentiary basis and that there is no sufficient basis for the reconstitution of said
OCT. The appellate court dismissed appeal. Hence, this petition for review.
ISSUE: Whether or not the reconstitution of OCT No. 3980 was in accordance with
the pertinent law and jurisprudence on the matter.
HELD: The relevant law that governs the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed Torrens
certificate of title is Republic Act No. 26. Section 2 enumerates the valid sources for
judicial reconstitution of title. Paragraph (f) of the said section refers to 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 phrase any other
document, according to Republic vs. Holazo, refers to reliable documents of the
kind described in the preceding enumerations and that the documents referred to in
Section 2(f) may be resorted to only in the absence of the preceding documents in
the list. Also, 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.
In this case, the respondents were unable to discharge the burden of proof
prescribed by law and jurisprudence for the reconstitution of lost or destroyed
Torrens certificate of title.

1) The respondents failed to prove that the owners duplicate copy of OCT was indeed
eaten by termites while in the custody of respondent Lorenzo and her late husband
Pedro Fontanilla who did not execute an affidavit of loss as required by PD No. 1529;
2) The certification issued by the Register of Deeds Isabela did not categorically state
that the subject OCT was among those destroyed by the fire that gutted the
premises of said office.
3) A comparison between the aforementioned certification and the technical
description and sketch plan will reveal that there was a discrepancy in the land area
of the lot allegedly covered by OCT No. 3980
In addition, the deed of sale purportedly between Antonia Pascua, as seller, and
Pedro Fontanilla, as buyer, which involves OCT No. 3980 cannot be relied upon as
basis for reconstitution of Torrens certificate of title. According to Tahanan
Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 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 a petition for
reconstitution. In this case, the deed of sale, though the OCT number is stated, does
not contain the date of issuance of certificate, resulting for its failure to support the
judicial reconstitution of the OCT.
Therefore, the decisions of the lower and appellate courts were reversed and set
aside, denying the petition for reconstitution.