o Petitions and Actions After Original Registration

o Reconstitution of Title

ROSARIO, Maria Janelle O.

SALAZAR, Angelica A.
SAYUD, Mark E.

LLB II-B
Group 8
 PETITIONS AND ACTIONS AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

SURRENDER OF WITHHELD DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE

Where filed (Section 107, PD 1529)

Where it is necessary to file a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument
which divest the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary instrument
cannot be registered by reason of refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owners
duplicate certificate title, the party in interest may file a petition in court (Regional Trial Court)
to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds.

Procedure (Section 107, PD 1529)

The party in interest may file a petition in court to compel surrender of the withheld duplicate
certificate, the court after hearing, may order any person withholding the duplicate certificate to
surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum.

If the person withholding the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the process of court, or if
for any reason the outstanding owners duplicate cannot be delivered, the court may order the
annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title.

AMENDMENT AND ALTERATION OF CERTIFICATE

Where filed (Section 108, PD 1529)

All petitions and motions after the original registration shall be file and entitled in the original
case in which the decree of registration was entered.

Oppen v. Compas, GR No. 203969, October 21, 2015

Proceedings under Section 108 are summary in nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of
mistake which are only clerical but certainly not controversial issues. Relief under said legal
provisions can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or that there is no adverse
claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest. Thus, the petition was properly
filed with the RTC- Las Pinas and not before the court which heard the original registration
proceeding. Section 2 of PD 1529 pertains to the grant of jurisdiction to the regional trial courts.
Section 109 refers to the venue where the action is to be instituted.
Grounds

a. The registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or

inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased;
b. New interests not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created;
c. An omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum or any
duplicate certificate
d. The same or any person on the certificate has been charged
e. The registered owner has married or if registered as married the marriage has terminated
and no rights or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected\
f. A corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not convened the
same within three years after its dissolution
g. Upon any other reasonable ground.

If petition is warranted, the court may order the entry or cancellation of a certificate, the entry
or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms
and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary.

Procedure

A registered owner or other person having interest in registered property, or in proper cases the
Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration may apply by
petition to the court upon the ground provided and the court may hear and determine the petition
after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate,
the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such
terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary.

May an RTC, acting as a land registration court hear both contentious and non-
contentious cases?

Yes. Sec 2 of PD1529 has eliminated the distinction between general and limited jurisdiction
conferred upon the RTC by the Land Registration Act of 496. The purpose of the elimination of
the distinction is to avoid multiplicity of suits.

Averia v. Caguia, GR No. L-65129, December 29, 1986 146 SCRA 459

LRA had been superseded by PD 1529 which eliminated the distinctions between general
jurisdiction vested in RTCs and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it when acting as a
cadastral court. The court is no longer fettered by its former limited jurisdiction which enabled it
to grant relief only in cases where there was unanimity among the parties or that there is no
adverse claim.
PNB v. International Corporate Bank, GR No. 86679, July 23, 1991

The RTCs acting as land registration courts now have exclusive jurisdiction not only over
applications for original titles to lands but also over petitions files after original registration.

Is there a time limit within which to file a petition?

No. There is no time limit to file the petition. Where there is no question as to the existence and
validity of the deed of sale, the registration of the sale and issuance of a TCT are ministerial
duties of the Registration of Deeds.

REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR DESTROYED CERTIFICATE

Where filed (Section 109, PD 1529)

A petition for replacement of a lost duplicate certificate of title shall be filed with the Regional
Trial Court of the place where the land lies.

PROCEDURE

a. Registered owner or other person in interest shall send notice, under oath, of the loss and
destruction of the owners duplicate certificate of title to the Register of Deeds of the
province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or destruction is discovered;
b. Corresponding petition for replacement of the loss or destroyed owners certificate shall
the be filed in court and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration
was entered;
c. Petition shall state under oath the facts and circumstances surrounding such loss or
destruction;
d. Court shall set the petition for hearing, after due notice to the Register of Deeds and all
other interested parties as shown in the memorandum of encumbrances noted in the
original or transfer certificate of title on file in the office of Register of Deeds;
e. After due notice and hearing, the court may direct the issuance of a new duplicate
certificate which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the
lost or destroyed certificate and shall in all respects be entitled to the same faith and
credit as the original duplicate.

Where not applicable

Camitan v. CA, GR No. 128099, December 20, 2006

When the owners duplicate copy is not in fact lost or destroyed, a petition for the purpose is
unwarranted as the court has no jurisdiction over the petition.
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE

Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of Register of Deeds
as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands covered by such titles shall be
reconstituted judicially in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Republic Act No. 26
insofar as not inconsistent with P.D. No. 1529. The procedure relative to administrative
reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificate prescribed in said act is hereby abrogated.

Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial reconstitution shall be given to the
Register of Deeds of the place where the land is situated and to the Commissioner of Land
Registration. No order or judgment ordering the reconstitution of a certificate of title shall
become final until the lapse of thirty days from receipt by the Register of Deeds and by the
Commissioner of Land Registration of a notice of such order or judgment without any appeal
having been filed by any of such officials. (SECTION 110, P.D. NO. 1529)

What is reconstitution?

The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and
condition of a lost or destroyed original or transfer certificate of title on file in the office of
Register of Deeds. (Republic vs. Tuastumban)

The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have the title reproduced in exactly the
same way it was at the time of its loss or destruction.

Reconstitution is proper only when it is satisfactorily shown that the title sought to be
reconstituted is lost or is no longer available.

The reconstitution of a certificate of title partakes of a land registration proceeding. Thus,

it must be granted only upon clear proof that the title sought to be restored was indeed issued to
the petitioner. A reconstitution of title does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by
the lost or destroyed title but merely determines whether a re-issuance of such title is proper.
(Republic vs. Santua)

KINDS OF RECONSTITUTION

1. Judicial Reconstitution
2. Administrative Reconstitution
JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION

Nature of Proceedings

The reconstitution of title under Republic Act No. 26 is an action in rem which it means it is one
directed not only against particular persons, but against the thing itself. Its object is to bar
indifferently all who might be minded to make any objection against the right sought to be
enforced, hence the judgment therein is binding theoretically upon the whole world. (Republic vs
CA)

Where to file petition (Section 12, R.A. No. 26)

The petition for reconstitution shall be filed by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person
having an interest in the property with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the
land lies based on sources enumerated in sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and/or 3(f)
of R.A. No. 26.

The petition shall contain 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 such buildings or
improvements;

e. the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, of the
owners of the adjoining properties and all persons who may have any interest in the property;

f. a detailed description of the encumbrances, if any, affecting the property; and

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

In case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources enumerated in section

2(f) of 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further be 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.
Notice Requirements (Section 13, R.A. No. 26)

The notice of petition shall be:

a. Published
o At the expense of the petitioner
o Twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette
b. Posted
o On the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of
the municipality or city in which the land is situated
o At least 30 days prior to the date of hearing
c. Mailed
o At the expense of the petitioner
o To every person named in the notice whose address is known
o At least 30 days prior to the date of hearing.

The jurisdictional requirements of: a) publication, b) posting, and service of notice are
mandatory. They provide constructive notice to the whole world of the in rem proceedings.
Hence, failure to comply with such requirements will nullify the decree of reconstitution.

Basis for Reconstitution

Sec. 110, P.D. No. 1529. Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of
Register of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands covered by such titles
shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Republic Act No.
26 insofar as not inconsistent with P.D. No. 1529.

In the case of Pascua vs. Republic, the petitioners failed to prove that a certificate of title
was originally issued to the subject lots. The Solicitor General notes that the subject lots
are still unregistered land of the public domain; thus, no certificate covering such
property can be issued. R. A. No 26 presupposes that the property whose title is sought to
be reconstituted has already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens System.
The purpose of reconstitution of title is to have the original reproduced in the same form
it was when it was lost or destroyed. In this case, there is no title to be re-issued since the
petitioners failed to prove the existence of title in the first place.

If an owners duplicate copy of certificate title has not been lost but is in fact in
possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the
decision has not acquired jurisdiction.

In the case of Villanueva vs. Viloria, the respondent filed a petition for the issuance of a
new owners duplicate copy of transfer of certificate of title of the subject land in lieu of
the lost one. However, the petitioners claim that at the time the petition was filed by the
 respondent, the subject land had already been sold to them, evidenced by the owners
duplicate copy of a transfer of certificate title and deed of absolute sale in possession of
petitioner. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the authenticity and genuineness of
the instruments presented by the petitioner. As there is no proof to support actual loss of
the said owners duplicate copies of the said certificates of title, the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction and the new titles issued in replacement thereof are void.

In Phil. Cotton Corp. vs Gagoomalang, the petitioner asserts that Section 71 of P.D. No.
1529 shows that it is the ministerial duty of the Register of Deeds, in the matter of
attachment or other liens in the nature of involuntary dealing in registered land, to send
notice by mail to a registered owner requesting him to produce his duplicate certificate so
that a memorandum of attachment or other lien may be made thereon. However, pursuant
to Sections 8 and 11 of R.A. No. 26 which provide for the procedure for the notation of
an interest that did not appear in the reconstituted certificate of title, mandating that a
petition be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction.

Thus, the Supreme Court held that it is not the ministerial function of the Register of
Deeds to record a right or an interest that was not duly noted in the reconstituted
certificate of title. As a matter of fact, this task is not even within the ambit of the
Register of Deeds job as the responsibility is lodged by law to the proper courts.

Requisites for Reconstitution

As held in Layos vs. Fil- estate Golf and Development Corp, for an order of reconstitution to
issue, the following elements must be present:

1. The certificate of title that had been lost or destroyed;

2. The petitioner is the registered owner of the property of had interest therein; and
3. The certificate of title was in force at that time it was lost or destroyed;

In the case of Republic vs. Tuastumban, the respondent failed to prove that an original certificate
of title or transfer certificate title actually existed. Lot 7129 may have actually been registered
and the certificate of title thereto may have actually been issued, but it was not proven by the
evidence presented. There is also the possibility that the property had never been registered and
that the certificate of title never issued. In that case, respondents remedy may be another
proceeding for registration of title and not for reconstitution. Because reconstitution presupposes
the existence of an original certificate of title which was lost or destroyed, if there is no such
original certificate of title, there is actually nothing to reconstitute.
Sources of Reconstitution

Original Certificates of Title (Sec.2, R.A. No. 26)

a. The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;

b. The co-owner's, mortgagees, 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.

For Transfer Certificates of Title (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 26)

a. The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;

b. The co-owner's, mortgagees, 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 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.

For Liens and Encumbrances (Sec.4, R.A. No. 26)

a. Annotations or memoranda appearing on the owners, co-owners, mortgagees or lessees

duplicate;
b. Registered documents on file in the registry of deeds, or authenticated copies showing that the
originals had been registered; and

c. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for
reconstituting the liens or encumbrances affecting the property covered by the lost or destroyed
certificate of title.

Improper Sources for Reconstitution

A tax declaration does not serve as a valid basis for reconstitution. A reconstitution of
title does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title
but merely determines whether a re-issuance of such title is proper.

Survey plan and technical descriptions, are not the documents referred to in Section 3(f)
but merely additional documents that should accompany the petition for reconstitution as
required. (Republic vs. Santua)

Supreme Court cautions the courts against the hasty and reckless grant of petitions for
reconstitution. Strict 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.

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
entitled to file an application for confirmation of his title under the provisions of the Land
Registration Act.

What does any other document refer to?

In the case of Republic vs. Catarroja, the Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in Republic v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, applying the principle of ejusdem generis, any other document
refers to reliable documents of the kind described in the preceding enumerations. It must fall in
the same class as those enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (e) proving that a certificate of title had
in fact been issued in the name of the applicant or its predecessors-in-interest.

In Republic v. Tuastumban, the Court ruled that the documents must come from official sources
which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-interest.

Note: 1(f) and 2(f) may be resorted to only in the absence of the preceding documents in the list.
Only if the petitioner for reconstitution fails to show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such
documents and failed to find them, can the presentation of the other document as evidence in
substitution be allowed.
 The phrase any other document in paragraph f of Sections 2 and 3 of RA 26 refer to
document similar to those enumerated. The enumerated requirements are documents from
official sources which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-
interest.

In Republic vs Lagramada the court said that the following are not sufficient bases for
reconstitutions:

1. Tax Declaration is not sufficient to prove ownership as it did not indicate the boundaries
of the lot.
2. Deed of Sale and tax payment receipt is not sufficient bases for reconstitution because the
title of the lot was not indicated in the document.
3. Technical description and blue print plan are additional requirements under section 12 of
RA 26 and are not on their own sufficient bases for reconstitution.

Republic Act No. 26 entitled enumerates the sources on which the reconstituted
certificate of title may be based. Sections 2 and 3 thereof list sources that evidence title or
transactions affecting title to property. When Republic Act No. 26 [Sec. 2(f)] therefore
speaks of "any other document," it must refer to similar documents previously
enumerated therein.

Reservation laws do not confer title to any party over the properties mentioned therein
upon which the reconstituted certificate of title may be based.

In Republic vs IAC and Kiram the court denied the petition for reconstitution of title by
the respondent because it does not refer to documents enumerated in the Section 2 and 3
of RA 26.

Act No. 3430, "An Act to provide for the reservation of certain lands of the public
domain on the Island of Sulu, the usufruct thereof to be granted to the Sultan of Sulu and
his heirs".

Proclamation No. 1530, "Reserving for resettlement purposes certain parcels of land
situated in Panamao, Talipao and Tiptipon, Province of Sulu, Philippines, under the
administration and disposition of the Department of Agrarian Reform."

Act No. 3430 and Proclamation No. 1530, are not enough to support the petition for
reconstitution.

Proclamation No. 1530 does not specifically name Sultan Kiram as the owner of the
lands reserved for resettlement. While Act No. 3430 does, this measure was enacted as
far back as 1928. Since then, the properties could have undergone successive transfers.
Reconstitution in a pending Cadastral Action

Section 10 of Act 3110 should apply to reconstitution of title to a pending cadastral action.

Section 10. Pending cadastral cases shall be reconstituted as follows:

The Court shall issue an order directing the person interested to file anew their replies, for which
purpose reasonable time may be allowed. The order shall be published in the Official Gazette
and by local notices during a period fixed in said order.

Immediately upon receipt of the notice provided for in section one of this Act, the Chief of the
General Land Registration Office shall cause duly certified true copies of all destroyed cadastral
proceedings to be sent to the clerk of the Court concerned.

The new replies filed by the parties interested and the copies furnished by the General Land
Registration Office shall form the reconstituted record.

RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over respondents petition for reconstitution for failing to
comply with the publication requirement. (Republic vs Oyales)

Publication of the petition for reconstitution is required since it is proceeding in rem. Without
publication, the order of reconstitution is null and void.

Manotok vs. Barque

Courts have no jurisdiction over petition of reconstitution over land that are already issued
subsisting titles

Courts have no jurisdiction over petitions for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles
over lands that are already covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the name of their duly
registered owners.

ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION (R.A. NO. 6732)

Administrative reconstitution may only be availed in case of substantial loss or

destruction of land titles, due to fire, flood or other force majeure where the number of
certificates of title lost or damaged, is at least ten per cent (10%) of the total number of
title in custody of the Registry of Deeds but in no case shall be the number of the lost
titles be less than 500.
Administrative Reconstitution: Requirement

Section 2. For the purpose of the preceding section, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 26 is hereby
revived and amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 5. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a,) and
3(b) of this Act may be filed with the Register of Deeds concerned by the registered owner, his
assigns, or other person, both natural and juridical, having an interest in the property. The
petition shall be accompanied with the necessary sources for reconstitution and with an affidavit
of the registered owner stating, among other things:

"1. That no deed or other instrument affecting the property had been presented for registration,
or, if there be any, the nature thereof, the date of its presentation, as well as the names of the
parties, and whether the registration of such deed or instrument is still pending accomplishment;

"2. That the owner's duplicate certificate or co-owner's duplicate is in due form without any
apparent intentional alterations or erasures;

"3. That the certificate of title is not the subject of litigation or investigation, administrative or
judicial, regarding its genuineness or due execution or issuance;

"4. That the certificate of title was in full force and effect at the time it was lost or destroyed;

"5. That the certificate of title is covered by a tax declaration regularly issued by the Assessor's
Office; and

"6. That real estate taxes have been fully paid up to at least two (2) years prior to the filing of the
petition for reconstitution.

"If the reconstitution is to be made from any of the sources enumerated in Section 2(b) or 3(b),
the affidavit should further state that the owner's duplicate has been lost or destroyed and the
circumstances under which it was lost or destroyed. Thereupon, the Register of Deeds shall, no
valid reason to the contrary existing, reconstitute the certificate of title as provided in this Act."

It is intended only for non-controversial cases.

Administrative reconstitution of Torrens title is intended for non-controversial cases.

Reconstitution proceedings are not venue for confirmation or adjudication of title, but merely a
means by which a previously adjudicated title whose original has been lost or destroyed may be
reissued to its owner. (Manotok vs Barque)
 Decisions of LRA on Administrative reconstitution is an executive function: not subject
to res judicata

Decisions of the LRA on administrative reconstitution of title never become final and executory.
Administrative reconstitutions of title are merely a restoration or replacement of a lost or
destroyed title in its original form at the time of the loss or destruction. At any time, the LRA can
revoke its issuance of a reconstituted title if the lost or destroyed title is subsequently found.

The issuance by the LRA of a reconstituted title is an executive function, not a judicial or quasi-
judicial function. The Doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings and not to the exercise of administrative powers or to legislative, executive or
ministerial determination. (Manotok vs Barque)