CONSTI
REPUBLIC V. VERZOSA
GR NO. 173525
TINGA; March 28, 2008
(chriscaps)
FACTS
- Verzosa filed petition for reconstitution of orig TCT, alleging that she and Edna Garcia are registered owners of parcel of land.
- However, the orig was burned when QC Hall was gutted by fire. The Duplicate Certificate was lost as shown by Affidavit of Loss.
- Real estate taxes on he prop have been paid.
- RTC set the case for hearing. Only rep from OSG appeared. Petitioner-appellee was allowed to present further evidence. Hearing was reset on the ground, among others, of the need to amend petition to implead petitioner’s co-owner, Edna Garcia, who is also her sister. On July 18, 2001, petitioner filed a motion for leave to present evidence ex-parte without impleading her co-owner, citing the irreconcilable differences between them which the RTC granted.
- RTC ordered Register of Deeds to reconstitute. Hence, the appeal by Republic, through OSG.
- According to the Court of Appeals, the petition for reconstitution was filed under Sec. 3(f) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26 which grants the court the authority to consider other documents which it finds sufficient and proper bases for the reconstitution prayed for. In this case, the documentary evidence presented by respondent Gertrudes B. Verzosa, coupled with the Report submitted by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) confirming the previous existence of TCT No. 140606, is sufficient basis to grant the reconstitution.
- OSG argues respondent did not prove that she had exerted honest efforts to secure the documents enumerated in the law and had failed to find them.
ISSUE
WON TCT should be reconstituted
HELD
YES.
- Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 26 enumerates the sources upon which the reconstitution of transfer certificates of title shall be based.
- Among the sources enumerated in Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 26, the owner’s duplicate of the transfer certificate of title is given primacy because such document is, by all accounts, an
GR NO. 173525
TINGA; March 28, 2008
(chriscaps)
FACTS
- Verzosa filed petition for reconstitution of orig TCT, alleging that she and Edna Garcia are registered owners of parcel of land.
- However, the orig was burned when QC Hall was gutted by fire. The Duplicate Certificate was lost as shown by Affidavit of Loss.
- Real estate taxes on he prop have been paid.
- RTC set the case for hearing. Only rep from OSG appeared. Petitioner-appellee was allowed to present further evidence. Hearing was reset on the ground, among others, of the need to amend petition to implead petitioner’s co-owner, Edna Garcia, who is also her sister. On July 18, 2001, petitioner filed a motion for leave to present evidence ex-parte without impleading her co-owner, citing the irreconcilable differences between them which the RTC granted.
- RTC ordered Register of Deeds to reconstitute. Hence, the appeal by Republic, through OSG.
- According to the Court of Appeals, the petition for reconstitution was filed under Sec. 3(f) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26 which grants the court the authority to consider other documents which it finds sufficient and proper bases for the reconstitution prayed for. In this case, the documentary evidence presented by respondent Gertrudes B. Verzosa, coupled with the Report submitted by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) confirming the previous existence of TCT No. 140606, is sufficient basis to grant the reconstitution.
- OSG argues respondent did not prove that she had exerted honest efforts to secure the documents enumerated in the law and had failed to find them.
ISSUE
WON TCT should be reconstituted
HELD
YES.
- Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 26 enumerates the sources upon which the reconstitution of transfer certificates of title shall be based.
- Among the sources enumerated in Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 26, the owner’s duplicate of the transfer certificate of title is given primacy because such document is, by all accounts, an