Scribd
Upload
185 views2 pages

Angat Vs Republic

This case discusses the reconstitution of a lost original certificate of title under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 26. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order allowing reconstitution, finding that notices were not served to adjoining landowners. However, the Supreme Court ruled that (1) Section 10 does not require notice to adjoining owners, only publication and posting, and (2) the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the correct law, Republic Act No. 26, which only requires publication and posting for reconstitution in this case. The purpose of reconstitution is simply to reproduce the lost certificate of title in its original form.

Uploaded by

Michelle
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
185 views2 pages

Angat Vs Republic

This case discusses the reconstitution of a lost original certificate of title under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 26. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order allowing reconstitution, finding that notices were not served to adjoining landowners. However, the Supreme Court ruled that (1) Section 10 does not require notice to adjoining owners, only publication and posting, and (2) the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the correct law, Republic Act No. 26, which only requires publication and posting for reconstitution in this case. The purpose of reconstitution is simply to reproduce the lost certificate of title in its original form.

Uploaded by

Michelle
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Angat vs.

Republic of the Philippines


G.R. No. 175788, June 30, 2009

TOPIC: Reconstitution of Lost Original Certificate of Title, Section 10 of Republic Act No. 26

DOCTRINE: Reconstitution of Titles- The purpose of such an action is merely to have the
certificate of title reproduced, after proper proceedings, in the same form it was in when it loss or
destruction occurred. Failure to comply with any of this jurisdictional requirements for a petition
for reconstitution renders the proceeding null and void.

Section 10 of Republic Act No. 26- does not mandate that notice be specifically sent to adjoining
property owners, it only necessitated publication and posting of the notice of the petition in
accordance with Section 9 of the Act.

FACTS: On February 1999, Federico and Enriquita instituted LRC Case No. 1331 by filing
before the RTC a verified Petitions for the reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. T-4399
located in Cavite, presenting the owner’s duplicate copy of said TCT in their possession. On
1959, the old Provincial Capitol Building housing the former office of the RD of Cavite was
burned to ashes, totally destroying all the titles and documents kept inside the office. There was
no TCT presented or pending before the RD of Cavite when its former office was burned.
Federico and Enriquita attached to their Petition for Reconstitution a photocopy of their owners’
duplicate certificate. They also appended to the Petition, however, a Certification dated on 1998
issued by the RD of Cavite. Finding the Petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the RTC
issued an Order, setting the initial hearing. In compliance with the publication and posting, it
was published issues of the Official Gazette. The said Order was also posted and were served,
except it was unserved to the adjoining lot. In the hearing, Federico testified that he was 78
years old, married, a real estate broker. He further testified that he had in his possession the
owners’ duplicate certificate of TCT No. T-4399 in his and his sister Enriquita’s names. The
subject property was previously owned by his grandfather, Mariano Angat (Mariano), to whom
was issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 391. After Mariano’s death, the subject
property was inherited by his father, Gregorio Angat (Gregorio). Sometime in 1955, under
unexplained circumstances, Gregorio delivered to Federico (determined to be 34 years old at that
time) and Enriquita TCT No. T-4399, already registered in their names. He referred to the LRA
Report dated 1999 which affirmed the existence and accuracy of the technical description of
PSU. He also presented the Certification dated 1998, showing that the real property taxes on the
subject property were paid in the name of his grandfather, Mariano. Enriquita no longer took the
witness stand. After trial and consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the RTC
proceeded to rule on the merits of the Petition for Reconstitution. The Republic appealed the
RTC Order to the Court of Appeals. The CA issued a Decision granting the appeal of the
Republic and reversing the RTC Order. The RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the Petition
for Reconstitution because the notices of the hearing sent to the owners of the adjoining
properties via registered mail were returned without having been served on them. The court of
Appeals also found that Federico and Enriquita failed to prove that at the time the OCT was lost,
they were the only lawful owners of the subject property.
ISSUES: 1.) Whether or not the respondent CA in requiring the petitioners to notify the
adjoining owners. 2.) Whether or not CA acted in excess of jurisdiction when the respondent
Court did not apply the correct law in the present case of Republic Act No. 26.
HELD: 1.) Yes, the respondent CA erred in requiring the petitioners to notify the adjoin
owners. It is evident from a perusal of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 26, as quoted above, that
it does not mandate that notice be specifically sent to adjoining property owners; it only
necessitated publication and posting of the notice of the Petition for Reconstitution in accordance
with Section 9 of the same Act. Section 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26, requiring notice to
adjoining property owners, are actually irrelevant to the petition for reconstitution filed by
Federico and Enriquita considering that these provisions apply particularly to petitions for
reconstitution from sources enumerated under Sections 2(c), 2 (d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3 (e)
and/or 3(f) of Republic Act No. 26.
2.) Yes, the CA acted in excess of jurisdiction when the respondent Court did not apply the
correct law in the present case of Republic Act No. 26. The nature of the action for
reconstitution of a certificate of title under Republic Act No. 26, entitled “An Act Providing a
Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate of Title Lost or
Destroyed,”denotes a restoration of the instrument, which is supposed to have been lost or
destroyed, in its original form and condition. The purpose of such an action is merely to have the
certificate of title reproduced, after proper proceedings, in the same form it was in when its loss
or destruction occurred. The same Republic Act No. 26 specifies the requisites to be met for the
trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution of a certificate of title. As we
held in Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Velasco, 277 SCRA 342 (1997), failure to comply with
any of these jurisdictional requirements for a petition for reconstitution renders the proceedings
null and void.

You might also like