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

Respondent 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 on 16 July 1971 in the name of Jose Tan. The property under the said title was purchased by the spouses Mateo from Jose Tan, however, the original copy of the said TCT was deemed lost and cannot be located in the Registry of Deeds.

The RTC of Balanga denied the petition and the Motion for Reconsideration while the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and granted the same. Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari lodged by the Republic.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in giving evidentiary weight to the certified photocopy of the title as basis for the reconstitution of the original and owner‘s copy of the title

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es reliance on the certified photocopy of Judge Tizones 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es predecessor-in-interest.

Section 3 of R.A. No. 26, ”AN ACT PROVIDING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS CERTIFICATES OF TITLE LOST OR DESTROYED,” which has been quoted by the trial court in its decision, enumerates the sources-documents-bases of a reconstitution of a transfer certificate of title. To repeat, they are, in the following order:

1. the owneres duplicate of the title

2. the co-owneres mortgageees, or lesseees duplicate of the title

3. a certified copy of the title previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian

4. an authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be, pursuant to which the OCT was issued

5. a document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property . . . is . . . encumbered or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed title.

Since, except for the last above-enumerated document, the Mateos have failed to present any of the other documents, the rule on secondary evidence under Sec. 5 of Rule 130 applies. Section 5 of the rule provides that ”when the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on its part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.”

As the immediately quoted provision of the Rules directs, 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e petition for reconstitution fails.

In any event, even assuming that the original of the TCT was lost or is no longer available, not only is the photocopy of the alleged owneres duplicate copy thereof . Exh. ”1″ partly illegible. When, where and under what circumstances the photocopy was taken and where it was kept to spare it frombeing also “lost” were not even shown. These, not to mention the conduct by the Department of Justice and NBI of an investigation behind the issuance of the OCT and TCT cautioned and led the Court to rule against the sufficiency of the Mateos‘ evidence and propriety of a grant of their petition for reconstitution.