Fraud does not pay
Spouses Bobby and Rina filed a petition for the reconstitution of the original Transfer Certificate of Title over a parcel of land in Quezon City.
They claimed that the said TCT was issued in the name of Rina by the Register of Deeds, Quezon City. They further alleged that the original TCT was among the documents destroyed by the fire which razed the Office of the Register of Deeds, Quezon City in June 1988. Respondents sought reconstitution under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 26 (RA 26) based on Marina’s duplicate title.
The court issued notice of hearing was published and posted accordingly. The Republic of the Philippines, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and the other government offices were furnished copies of the notice of hearing.
The OSG recommended to the trial court the deferment of the proceedings until the LRA has submitted its Report on the petition as required under LRA Circular No. 35 considering that the petition filed on the basis of Section 3(a) of RA 26.
Bobby and Rina submitted a Report (“First Report”), signed by the Chief of the Reconstitution Division, LRA. The First Report stated that the LRA finds justification to grant the petition.
The trial court granted the petition after evidence was presented ex parte. The decision became final and executory. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds, Quezon City issued a reconstituted title in the name of Rina.
Months after, the LRA submitted to the trial court another Report. The said office informed the trial court that the First Report was fake.
In fact, the said office reported that the purported TCT is a questionable title and that the land subject of the questionable TCT overlaps properties covered by two other titles. The LRA requested the court to vacate its order of reconstitution and declare the newly issued reconstituted title void.
The trial court set aside its Decision. In setting aside its decision, the trial court found that the title to be reconstituted, overlaps two other TCTs.
The court remarked that the couple misled the court when they omitted in their petition the names of the registered owners of the two titled lots, and when they submitted a spurious LRA Report.
As a consequence of such misrepresentations, the trial court opined that its decision is void because it failed to acquire jurisdiction over the instant case on account of the parties’ non-compliance with Section 13, Republic Act No. 26, which required, among others, personal service of the notice of hearing to the owner[s] of the adjoining properties and all other interested parties who must appear and file their claim or objection to the petition.
In fact, the spouses, at the hearing, ought to have submitted proof of the required publication, posting and service of the notice.
Q: Can the trial court set aside its order of reconstitution even if the decision has already attained finality?
A: Yes. The trial court was misled into treating the LRC Case as having been filed under Section 3(a) based on Rina’s purported duplicate title. Consequently, the trial court only ordered the mere publication and posting of the notice of hearing.
Had the spouses been truthful in their assertions, then the mandatory and jurisdictional requirement of actual notice stated in Section 13 in relation to Section 12 of RA 26 could have been complied. Resultantly, the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction as all interested parties were not actually notified of the petition.
Q: What does it mean when one says that the requirement of actual notice in Section 13 in relation to Section 12 of RA 26 is jurisdictional?
A: It means that before the court can exercise its power and authority to hear and decide the case, the requirement of actual notice must first be complied with.
The power and authority of the court in the instant case is conferred upon it by Republic Act 26 entitled “An Act providing a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title lost or destroyed”.
The Act specifically provides the special requirements and mode of procedure that must be followed before the court can act on the petition and grant to the petitioner the remedy sought for. These requirements and procedure are mandatory.
Hence, non-compliance with the actual notice requirement in Section 13 in relation to Section 12 of RA 26, would necessarily render the the trial court without authority to hear and decide the LRC Case.
Q: What is the effect of the fact that the Second Report was submitted after the period to appeal?
A: None. The belated submission is no bar for the trial court to consider the Second Report. Courts have inherent power to correct fatal infirmities in its proceedings, especially if, as here, the flaw was intentionally brought about by a party who employed deceit in misleading the trial court.
To hold otherwise would render courts helpless in maintaining the integrity of its proceedings and correspondingly embolden parties to make a mockery of judicial rules.
Q: What is the purpose of reconstitution proceedings under RA 26?
A: It has for its purpose the restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land.
Reconstitution must be granted only upon clear proof that the title sought to be restored was indeed issued to the petitioner. Strict observance of this rule is vital to prevent parties from exploiting reconstitution proceedings as a quick but illegal way to obtain TCTs over parcels of land which turn out to be already covered by existing titles.
(Source: Republic of the Philipppines, represented by the Land Registration Authority, vs. Spouses Sanchez, G.R. No. 146081, July 17, 2006)
Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis is currently the Dean for the Lyceum of the Philippines University; president of the Philippines Association of Law Schools; and Senior Partner, Gatchalian
