Republic v. Zoomak (G.R. No. 181891; December 5, 2012)


FACTS: The land registration court rendered a decision in a cadastral case adjudicating the subject lot in favor of one Teresa Macawili (Macawili). During World War II, however, Macawili's copy of the Original Certificate Title (OCT) and the copy of the Register of Deeds (RD) covering the lot were lost or destroyed.

Subsequently, respondent Zoomak R.P.C., Inc. (Zoomak) bought the land from Nestor Macawili, Jr., who in turn had bought it from his uncle, GalicanoMacatangga, Teresa Macawilis sole heir. Zoomak then filed with the RTC a petition for reconstitution of the original or RD copy of the title of the land, the number of which was unknown, as well as the owners duplicate copy. The RTC granted Zoomaks petition and ordered the RD to reconstitute the OCT covering the subject property. But the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the order to the CA. The CA affirmed, hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Is the reconstitution of a certificate of title proper?

HELD: The reconstitution of a certificate of title under RA 26 denotes the restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument, thus attesting the title of a person to a piece of land. Its purpose is to have the title reproduced in exactly the same way it was before its loss or destruction after observing the procedures prescribed by law.

Zoomak presented, as evidence, a Land Registration Authority (LRA) certification which states that, based on LRA records, the land registration court issued in a cadastral case the subject lot in favor of Teresa Macawili, and RTC Certification adjudicating the lot in favor of Teresa Macawili. CA aptly found such certifications worthy of belief and essential proof of the existence of the lost title that Zoomak sought to reconstitute. DENIED.

Project Jurisprudence is connected with the following:

Facebook page:
Twitter page:
YouTube channel:
Another YouTube channel: