REPUBLIC V. SANTUA (LTD, TORRENS TITLE)

ISSUE: Whether or not tax declarations, survey plans, and technical descriptions are sufficient bases for the reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title.

NO.

A tax declaration, as pronounced by the Court in Heirs of Eulalio Ragua v. CA, 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 merely determines whether a reissuance of such title is proper.

As for the survey plans and technical descriptions, the Court has previously dismissed the same as not the documents referred to in Section 3(f) but merely additional documents that should accompany the petition for the reconstitution as required by law. 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. Further, in Lee v. Republic, the Court declared the reconstitution based on a survey plan and technical descriptions void for lack of factual support.


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 the piece of land. It partakes of a land registration proceeding. Thus, it must be granted upon clear proof that the titles sought to be restored was indeed issued to the petitioner. In this regards, Section 3 of RA 26 enumerates the documents regarded 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 resources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:

1. Owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;
2. Co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certificate of title;
3. Certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
4. 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;
5. Document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property the description of which is given in said documents, is mortgaged, leased, or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and
6. 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 Court has already settled in a number of cases that following the principle of ejusdem generis in statutory construction, and document mentioned in Section 3 should be interpreted to refer to documents similar to those previously enumerated therein. As aptly observed by the petitioner, the documents enumerated in Section 3 are documents that had been issued or are on file with the register of deeds, thus, highly credible.

Once again, we caution 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. Courts should bear in mind that should the petition for reconstitution be denied for lack of sufficient basis, the petitioner is not left without a remedy. He may still file an application for confirmation of his title under the provisions of the Land Registration Act, if he is in fact the lawful owner.