Case Digest: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LORENZO AND FELICIANA MATEO

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LORENZO AND FELICIANA MATEO

436 SCRA 502 (2004), THIRD DIVISION

Spouses Lorenzo and Feliciana Mateo filed a Petition for the Reconstitution of the Original Copy as well as the Owner‘s Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-38769 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Bataan in the name of Jose Tan. The property under the said title was purchased by the Spouses Mateo from Jose Tan. Nevertheless, the original copy of the said TCT was deemed lost and cannot be located in the Registry of Deeds.

The Regional Trial Court of Balanga denied the petition and the Motion for Reconsideration. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court‘s decision and held that Mateo satisfactorily proved that the original TCT was lost. Hence, the filing of this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Mateo‘s Petition for Reconstitution must be granted

HELD:

As correctly noted by the RTC “there is no showing how the parcels of land in question were transferred to Jose Tan”. The said order and decree, therefore, establish only the prior existence of OCT No. N-205 but not that of TCT No. T-38769 in the name of Jose Tan. The CA‘s reliance on the certified photocopy of Judge Tizon‘s decision awarding to Donato Echivarria from whose OCT the TCT subject of reconstitution was transferred does not lie for, in the first place, “there is no showing how the parcels of land were transferred to Jose Tan,” the spouses Mateo‘s predecessor-in-interest. Since the Mateos have failed to present any of the other documents, the rule on secondary evidence under Sec. 5 of Rule 130 applies.

The order of presentation of secondary evidence is: existence, execution, loss, contents. The order may, however, be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court. The sufficiency of the proof offered as a predicate for the admission of an allegedly lost document lies within the judicial discretion of the trial court under all the circumstances of the particular case.

Assuming that the existence and execution of the original of the TCT has been satisfactorily shown and that it was taken in 1973 by the Department of Justice and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in connection with the investigation of the judge on whose order the OCT from which the TCT was transferred, which OCT was also taken by said government agencies, there is no satisfactory showing that the TCT has been lost.

In fine, the Mateos have not satisfactorily shown that the original of the TCT has been lost or is no longer available. On this score alone, the Mateos‘ petition for reconstitution fails.