Case Digest: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF PASCUAL OCARIZA, REPRESENTED BY CO-HEIR BACALSO

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF PASCUAL OCARIZA, REPRESENTED BY CO-HEIR BACALSO

566 SCRA 92 (2008)

There must be sufficient evidence to prove that an Original Certificate of Title was issued to his predecessors-in-interest for an order of reconstitution to be valid.

Remedios Bacalso, in representation of the Heirs of Pascual Ocariza, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an Application for Original Registration of a parcel of land, situated in Inayawan, Cebu City but was dismissed by the RTC. It was held that upon verification of Record Books of Cadastral Lots, it was found that Decree No. 99211 has already been issued on the lot.

Years later, Bacalso filed a Petition for the Reconstitution of Lost Certificate of Title covering the same lot before the RTC, alleging that pursuant to the decree, an original certificate of title to said Lot No. 4147 had been issued by the Register of Deed, in the name of Pascual Ocariza, but the owner’s duplicate and original copy of which on file in the office of the Register of Deeds of Cebu, were lost during the last World War.

RTC ordered the reconstitution of the lost original certificate of title in the name of Pascual Ocariza, upon payment of the required fees. The Solicitor General appealed the RTC‘s decision, arguing that the heirs failed to prove their interest. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the order of reconstitution is valid

HELD:

The Court finds the petition meritorious not on the ground advanced by the Solicitor General but on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the alleged Decree No. 99211, and an Original Certificate of Title, was issued to Pascual Ocariza, the heirs‘ alleged predecessor-in-interest.

Assuming arguendo that there was indeed a Decree No. 99211 which is, however, “not among the salvaged decrees on file in the Land Registration Authority,” there is no statement, as shown in the Report of the LRA, that the decree was issued in the name of Pascual Ocariza.

That even the heirs of Pascual Ocariza were not aware of any such decree is shown by the fact that, as reflected above, before filing their Petition for Reconstitution, they had years earlier filed an application for original registration covering the lot, which application was deemed withdrawn by Branch 17 of the RTC on their motion, after the LRA recommended its dismissal.

It was thus palpably wrong for RTC Cebu to credit heirs’ attorney-in-fact Remedios Bacalso’s testimony that the decree was issued in the name of Pascual Ocariza “per” LRA Report, to credit Remedios Bacalso’s testimony that the decree was issued in the name of Pascual Ocariza “per” the LRA Report because nothing in said Report is there any statement that the decree was issued in the name of Pascual Ocariza, and to credit Remedios Bacalso’s testimony that a title was issued covering the lot in the name of Pascual Ocariza, the duplicate copy of which was lost as well as the original copy in the possession of the Cebu Registry of Deeds.