KINDS OF RECONSTITUTION

Applicable Law: RA No. 26

PASCUA V. REPUBLIC, GR No. 162097, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 186
Facts:
Petitioner claims to own a lot in Pagsanjan, Laguna Cadastre. She inherited the
lot from her parents who bought it from Serafin Limauco. Limauco was awarded the
land by the cadastral court in December 4, 1930. Her parents bought it from Limauco in
December 24, 1956, evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale 1.
Due to World War II, the title was destroyed. On December 8, 1999, petitioner
filed for judicial reconstitution of the OCT at RTC of Laguna. She alleged that no other
pending land registration or civil case covered the land 2.
After complying with the requirements, petitioner was allowed to present
evidence, ex-parte. The RTC denied the petition due to lack of evidence. On appeal, the
CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC3.
Issue: Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTCs decision to deny petitioners petition
for judicial reconstitution of title.
Ruling: No. As held in Republic v. IAC, RA 26, Section 2(f) speaks of any other
document, the reference is to similar documents previously enumerated in the section
or documents ejusdem generis as the documents earlier referred to. The Deed of Coowners Partition states that the subject of the instrument is Lot No. 19-pt. The Deed of
Absolute Sale between Limuaco and petitioners parents, on the other hand, states that
the land was not registered under Act No. 496. Petitioner nevertheless insists that Lot
No. 3209 is the subject of a decree of registration according to the records of the LRA,
and that between Limuacos statement and the certification from the LRA, the latter must
prevail4.

1 Pascua v. Republic, 545 SCRA 186 (2008)

2 Ibid
3 Ibid
4 Ibid

We are not convinced. RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is sought
to be reconstituted has already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens
System, Act No. 496. Petitioners evidence itself, the Deed of Sale between Limuaco
and her parents, stated that the lot was not registered under Act No. 496 and that the
parties agreed to register it under Act No. 3344. Even the Deed of Co-owners Partition
stated that the subject lot, Lot No. 19-pt, is not registered. The other piece of evidence,
the certifications from the LRA, merely stated that Decree No. 412846 covering Lot No.
3209 was issued on December 4, 1930, but the copy of said decree is not among the
salvaged decrees on file with said office. The said copy is presumed lost or destroyed
during World War II. The LRA neither stated that a certificate of title was actually issued
nor mentioned the number of the OCT. It cannot be determined from any of the
evidence submitted by petitioner that the adjudicatee of the purported decree was
Limuaco5.
VILLANUEVA V. VILLORIA, GR No. 155804, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 401 (2008)
Facts:
On February 22, 2001, respondent Francisco Viloria applied for a verified petition for the
issuance of a new owners duplicate of a TCT because allegedly it has been lost, before
the RTC of Iba, Zambales. He alleged the following in his petition 6:
a. He is the absolute owner of the lot
b. He and his wife were residents of Iba, Zambales until the death of his wife.
c. The title was in a wooden chest eaten by termites.
d. The title was lost
e. The owners copy was beyond recovery and irretrievably lost
f. He executed an Affidavit of Loss and Registered name at the Register of
Deeds of Zambales
g. That the owners duplicate had not been delivered or conveyed to a third
person

5 See note 1, supra

6 Villanueva v. Viloria, 548 SCRA 401 (2008)

After the requirements of the certificate had been complied with, the trial court
granted the petition for reconstitution of respondents title. After the order had become
final and executor, the Register of Deeds release a new TCT in respondents name 7.
After acquiring the TCT, respondent sold 583 sq.m. to Ruben, Marty and a TCT was
issued in Martys name8.
On May 10, 2004, petitioners filed an annulment of the judgment of the RTC due to lack
of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud. Petitioners argue that they came to know of the
reconstitution only on March 2002 and were not given the necessary notices. The CA
dismissed their petition9.
Issue: Whether the decision of the CA was in consonance with past applicable decisions
of the Supreme Court
Ruling: Petition has merit. In the case of Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 10, where
this Court was faced with the same facts and issue, therein:
respondent Pealosa filed a petition for the issuance of a new owners duplicate
certificate of title. He alleged therein that his copy was lost and was not pledged
or otherwise delivered to any person or entity to guaranty any obligation or for
any purpose. When the trial court issued a new owners duplicate title, therein
petitioner Strait Times, Inc filed a petition to annul judgment based on extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Strait Times, Inc. claimed that Pealosa
misrepresented before the trial court that the said owners duplicate copy of the
title was lost when in fact it was in the possession of the former pursuant to a
contract of sale between Pealosa and a certain Conrado Callera. Callera later
sold the lot represented by the alleged lost title to therein petitioner Strait Times,
Inc.
We ruled therein, as we now rule in the case at bar, that extrinsic fraud did not attend
the proceedings before the trial court for the reason that:
xxx It is well-settled that the use of forged instrument or perjured testimonies during trial
is not an extrinsic fraud, because such evidence does not preclude the participation of
7 Ibid
8 Ibid
9 See note 6, supra
10 Strait Times v. CA, GR No. 126673, August 28, 1998

any party in the proceedings. While a perjured testimony may prevent a fair and just
determination of a case, it does not bar the adverse party from rebutting or opposing the
use of such evidence. Furthermore, it should be stressed that extrinsic fraud pertains to
an act committed outside of the trial. The alleged fraud in this case was perpetrated
during the trial11.
However, in consonance with the Strait Times case, respondent Davids act of
misrepresentation, though not constituting extrinsic fraud, is still an evidence of absence
of jurisdiction. In the Strait Times case and in Demetriou v. Court of Appeals 12, also on
facts analogous to those involved in this case, we held that if an owners duplicate copy
of a certificate of 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. Consequently, the decision may be attacked any time 13. In the case at bar,
the authenticity and genuineness of the owners duplicate of TCT Nos. T-52537 and T52538 in the possession of petitioner Rexlon and the Absolute Deed of Sale in its favor
have not been disputed. As there is no proof to support actual loss of the said owners
duplicate copies of said certificates of title, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction and
the new titles issued in replacement thereof are void 14.
THE PHIL COTTON CORP V. GAGOOMAL ANG, GR No. 130389, February, 11, 2008,
544 SCRA 185 (2008)
Facts:
Pacific Mills original owned 5 parcels of land that were purchased by respondents in an
installment basis. Petitioner filed a collection case against Pacific Mills at the RTC of
Pasig for their contract of loan. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction with
attachment on the 5 parcels of land subject of the contract of sale 15.
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner which was affirmed by the CA on
appeal. Pacific Mills appealed to the Supreme Court but during the pendency of the
11 Ibid
12 Demetriou v. CA, GR No. 115595,November 14, 1994
13 See note 12, supra
14 See note 6, supra
15 The Phil Cotton Corp. v. Gagoomal, GR No. 130389, February 11, 2008

appeal the Quezon City Hall was razed by a fire destroying the records of the Registry
of Deeds16.
Subsequently, Pacific Mills filed for an administrative reconstitution of the titles. The
Registry of Deeds issued the same without the annotations recorded for petitioner, only
the contract of sale of between the company and the respondents. The respondents
paid in full and were therefore given clean titles thereto.
The petitioners wrote the Registry of Deeds asking them to place the annotations
of levy on the titles of respondents. Immediately upon hearing of such letter the
respondents verified the original copies of the titles and discovered that the annotations
were already recorded. Thereafter the respondents filed a petition for the cancellation of
the annotations.
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of the respondents. On appeal, the CA
dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction 17.
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the authority of the Register of Deeds
to re-annotate the titles
Ruling: No. Section 10 of P.D. No. 1529 merely involves the general functions of the
Register of Deeds, while Section 71 thereof relates to an attachment or lien in a
registered land in which the duplicate certificate was not presented at the time of the
registration of the said lien or attachment 18.
A special law specifically deals with the procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens
certificates of title lost or destroyed. Under Section 4 of Act No. 26:
Liens and other encumbrances affecting a destroyed or lost certificate of title shall be
reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in
the following order:
(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 thereof showing that the originals thereof had been registered; and
16 Ibid
17 Ibid
18 See note 15, supra

(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 title19.
Furthermore, Sections 8 and 11 of the same Act 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:
Section 8. Any person whose right or interest was duly noted in the original of a
certificate of title, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but does not appear so noted on
the reconstituted certificate of title, which is subject to the reservation provided in the
preceding section, may, while such reservation subsists, file a petition with the proper
Court of First Instance for the annotation of such right or interest on said reconstituted
certificate of title, and the court, after notice and hearing, shall determine the merits of
the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. The petition
shall state the number of the reconstituted certificate of title and the nature, as well as a
description, of the right or interest claimed20.
xxx
Section 11. Petitions for reconstitution of registered interests, liens and other
encumbrances, based on sources enumerated in sections 4(b) and/or 4(c) of this Act,
shall be filed, by the interested party, with the proper Court of First Instance. The petition
shall be accompanied with the necessary documents and shall state, among other
things, the number of the certificate of title and the nature as well as a description of the
interest, lien or encumbrance which is to be reconstituted, and the court, after
publication, in the manner stated in section nine of this Act, and hearing shall determine
the merits of the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require 21.
Clearly, therefore, 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. The foregoing quoted provisions of
the law leave no question nor any doubt that it is indeed the duty of the trial court to

19 RA No. 26, Section 4

20 RA No. 26, Section 8
21 RA No. 26, Section 11

determine the merits of the petition and render judgment as justice and equity may
require22.
REQUISITES OF RECONSTITUTION
Applicable Law: RA No. 26
1. The certificate of Title has been lost or destroyed;
2. The petitioner is the registered owner or has an interest therein; and
3. The certificate of title is in force at the time it was destroyed or lost.
LAYOS V. FIL-ESTATE GOLD AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. GR No. 150470, August 6,
2008
Facts:
In a previous case, Fil-Estate Golf (FEGDI) was the developer of a golf course in
Laguna along with La Paz who provided the properties registered in its name.
Thereafter, Layos filed for injunction against FEGDI and alleged that he is the legal
owner of the lands in question, and further alleged an intrusion on the part of FEGDI
and La Paz. Layos filed two different cases in two separate courts, praying for the same
thing. Complaint was dismissed for forum-shopping 23.
Only months after instituting the injunction cases, Layos filed a complaint for
quieting of title against La Paz. Layos alleges that La Paz grabbed his land and
entered it without his consent. His main proof was the Original Certificate Title No. 239,
issued in his name. La Paz argues that Layos never owned or possessed the land in
question an in fact, it got the lands from the government and it was issued the assailed
Transfer Certificate of Titles. The court ruled in favor of La Paz and declared their titles
to be indefeasible and found the OCT of Layos to be spurious.
Layos filed an action to reconstitute his title and many others opposed. The court
again denied this, reiterating that OCT 239 of Layos is forged 24.
Issue: Whether or not Layos is entitled to reconstitution.

22 See note 15, supra

23 Layos v. Fil-Estate Gold and Development Corp., GR No. 150470, August 6, 2008
24 See note 23, supra

Ruling: No. Layos did not have a valid title to the said property because the RTC ruled
that it was forged.
Reconstitution or reconstruction of a certificate of title literally and within the
meaning of Republic Act No. 26 denotes restoration of the instrument which is
supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. For an order
of reconstitution to issue, the following elements must be present:
1) the certificate of title has been lost or destroyed;
2) the petitioner is the registered owner or has an interest therein; and
3) the certificate of title is in force at the time it was lost or destroyed.
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. When the court relied on the previous
judgment in the injunction cases that the OCT of Layos was forged, it did NOT entertain
a collateral attack when it dismissed the reconstitution case 25.
REPUBLIC V. TUASTUMBAN, GR No. 173210, April 24, 2009
Facts:
Tuastumban filed a petition for reconstitution of the OCT covering Lot No. 7129,
Flr-133, Talisay-Minglanilla Estate under Patent No. 43619 in the name of the Legal
Heirs of Sofia Lazo, with area of approximately 3,633 square meters. The OCT which
was in the possession of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cebu was allegedly
either lost or destroyed during World War II. Respondent anchored her petition for
reconstitution on Sec. 2(d) of Republic Act No. 26 which provides that an original
certificate of title may be reconstituted from an authenticated copy of the decree of
registration or patent, as the case may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of
title was issued26.
According to the Certification by the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office of Cebu City, Lot No. 7129 was granted to the heirs of Sofia Lazo via
Patent No. 43619 issued on 21 July 1938. Respondent claims she bought the property
from the said owners who are also her relatives, as evidenced by an Extrajudicial
Declaration of Heirs with Waiver of Inheritance Rights and Deed of Absolute Sale. She
claims that since the time of purchase, she has been occupying and possessing the
25 Ibid
26 Republic v. Tuastumban, GR No. 173210, April 24, 2009

land and paying the realty taxes thereon. Respondent prayed for reconstitution of the
title covering the property since the title, supposedly on file and under the custody of the
Register of Deeds of Cebu Province, had either been lost or destroyed during World
War II as certified by said office. Cebu City Prosecutor, representing the Office of the
Solicitor General, did not present any evidence against respondent 27.
On 11 December 2000, the RTC ordered to reconstitute the lost Original
Certificate of Title covering Lot No. 7129, Flr-133, Talisay-Minglanilla Estate, in the
name of the Legal Heirs of Sofia Lazo based on Patent No. 43619 issued on 21 July
193828.
Petitioner interposed an appeal with the Court of Appeals which reversed the
RTC judgment. The appellate court held that no proper reconstitution can be done
since respondent did not utilize the sources of reconstitution provided under Sec. 2 of
R.A. No. 26 in the order therein stated, merely presenting as it did a Certification from
the CENRO that a patent had been issued over Lot No. 7129 in the name of the heirs of
Sofia Lazo29.
However, upon a motion for reconsideration filed by respondent, the Court of
Appeals in its Amended Decision of 23 June 2006 reversed itself and held that
respondent has substantially complied with the requirements for reconstitution under RA
2630.
Issue: Whether the documents presented by respondent constitute sufficient basis for
the reconstitution of title to Lot No. 7129.
Ruling: No. Respondents evidence is inadequate.
The 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 occurred. RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is sought
to be reconstituted has already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens
System31.

27 See note 26, supra

28 Ibid
29 Ibid
30 Ibid

Respondent anchored her petition for reconstitution on Sec. 2(d) of RA 26. Respondent
however failed to present an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent
pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued. She relied on the CENRO
certification which is however not the authenticated copy of the decree of registration or
patent required by law. The certification plainly states only that Lot No. 7129 is patented
in the name of the Legal Heirs of Sofia Lazo. It is not even a copy of the decree of
registration or patent itself but a mere certification of the issuance of such patent 32.
SOURCES OF RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE:
Applicable Law: RA No. 26
The sources of Reconstitution of Title are enumerated in Section 2 (Original
Certificate of Title) and Section 3 (Transfer Certificate of Title) of RA 26 which provides:
The Original Certificate of Title shall be reconstituted from the following sources:
(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 33.
The Transfer Certificate of Title shall be reconstituted from the following sources:
(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;
31 See note 26, supra
32 Ibid
33 RA No. 26, Section 2

(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 34.
IMPROPER SOURCES OF RECONSTITUTION
Applicable Law: RA No. 26
1. Tax Declarations a tax declaration does not serve as a valid basis for
reconstitution. Following the principle of ejusdem generis, Any document referred to in
Section 3 of RA 26 should be interpreted to refer to documents similar to those
previously enumerated therein. A petition for reconstitution of title will 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 proper35. (Republic v. Santua, GR No. 155703,
September 8, 2008)
2. Documents that Do Not represent ownership36:
a. Microfilm Printouts of the Official Gazette
b. LRA Certification of Issuance of a Decree
c. Certification from the Registry of Deeds that it cannot ascertain whether the land had
been issued a title.
d. Report from the LRA that a Decree had been issued

34 RA No. 26, Section 3

35 Republic v. Santua, GR No. 155703, September 8, 2008
36 Republic v. Catarroja, 612 SCRA 472 (2010)

e. Affidavit of Loss37
None of these prove that a certificate of title had in fact been issued in the name
of their parents. The Court ruled that the documents must come from official
sources which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-ininterest. None of the documents presented in this case fit such description 38.
REPUBLIC V. LAGRAMADA, GR No. 150741, June 12, 2008
Facts:
Lot 8 with an area of 500 sq.m. located in Quezon City was in allegedly covered by a
TCT in the name of Reynaldo Pangilinan. The original title thereto was supposedly
destroyed in a fire that razed the Register of Deeds of Quezon City 39.
Pangilinan sold Lot 8 to the respondents. The respondents paid all the taxes on the land
from 1976 to 1997. On April 16, 1997 the spouses filed for reconstitution of the original
copy of the TCT and for the issuance of a second owners duplicate copy which
Pangilinan allegedly lost40.
After complying with the required publication and notice, the trial court heard the petition
but did not issue a default order even when no oppositor appeared. The following
documents were presented:
1. Certification from the Office of the Acting Deputy Register of Deeds of
Quezon City respecting the destruction of TCT No. 118717;
2.

Affidavit of Loss of TCT No. 118717 executed by Pangilinan;

3.

Deed of Sale executed by Pangilinan in favor of respondents;

4.

Tax payment receipts from 1976 to 1997;

5.

Tax Declaration No. C-122-01735 in the name of Pangilinan; and

37 Ibid
38 See note 36, supra
39 Republic v. Lagramada, GR No. 150741, June 12, 2008
40 Ibid

6. Certified true copy of the technical description, verified and approved for
the administrator by Apolinar R. Lucido of the Subdivision and Consolidation
Division; and
7. The plan prepared and verified as correct by Geodetic Engineer Eligio L.
Cruz and approved for the Land Registration Authority (LRA) 41.
The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents. Petitioner thru the OSG filed an appeal on
the ground that the evidence presented were not sufficient to reconstitute a title. The CA
ruled in favor of respondents stating that they were filing for reconstitution based on an
interest therein and the evidence shown were part of Section 2(f) and 3(f) of RA 26 42.
Issue: Whether the documents presented by respondents are sufficient bases for the
reconstitution of title.
Ruling: No. The requirements of Sections 2 and 3 are almost identical. We agree with
petitioner that the enumerated requirements are documents from official sources which
recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-interest. We likewise
agree that any other document in paragraph (f) of Sections 2 and 3 refers to documents
similar to those enumerated. This issue is already a settled matter 43.

3. Reservation Laws, Act 3430 and Proclamation 1530 these laws do not confer
title to any party over the properties mentioned therein upon which reconstituted
certificate of title may be based44.
RECONSTITUTION IN A PENDING CADASTRAL ACTION
Applicable Law: Section 10 Republic Act 3110
Sec. 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
41 Ibid
42 See note 39, supra
43 Ibid
44 Republic v. IAC, 157 SCRA 62 (1988)

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 45.
Republic v. Oyales, GR No. 168742, September 3, 2008
Section 10 of Act 3110 should apply to reconstitution of title to a pending
cadastral action. The RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over respondents petition for
reconstitution for failing to comply with the publication requirement 46. In line with the
ruling in Nacua, respondents remedy was to file the petition for reconstitution anew and
observe the requirements under section 10, Act 3110. Considering that there was
already a final decision in her favor, the case should continue and the court, if proper,
may order the issuance of the decree of registration. 47
Manotok v. Barque, GR No. 162335, December 18, 2008
Courts have no jurisdiction over petitions for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed
titles over lands that are already covered by duly subsisting titles in the name of their
duly registered owners48.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSITUTION
Applicable Law: RA No. 6732 (amending Section 110, PD 1529)
a. It is warranted where the number of certificates lost is not less than 500 and the
cause of the loss or destruction is by fire, flood, or any other force majure 49.
b. It is intended only for no controversial cases 50.
45 RA No. 3110, Section 10
46 Republic v. Oyales, GR No. 168742, September 3, 2008
47 Ibid
48 Manotok v. Barque, GR No. 162335, December 18, 2008
49 RA No. 6732, Section 1
50 See note 48, supra

c. Decisions of the LRA on administrative reconstitution is an executive function; not

subject to res judicata.51

51 See note 48, supra