Scribd
Upload
305 views2 pages

Paz Vs RP - Digested

Marcelino filed a petition to reconstitute Title Certificate No. 206714 for a parcel of land that was destroyed in a fire in 1988. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition based on documents Marcelino submitted including a subdivision plan, tax declarations, and an LRA report. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that Marcelino did not present competent evidence required by law to reconstitute the lost title. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the documents Marcelino submitted did not constitute valid sources to reconstitute the original title as required by law.

Uploaded by

Raiza Sarte
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
305 views2 pages

Paz Vs RP - Digested

Marcelino filed a petition to reconstitute Title Certificate No. 206714 for a parcel of land that was destroyed in a fire in 1988. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition based on documents Marcelino submitted including a subdivision plan, tax declarations, and an LRA report. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that Marcelino did not present competent evidence required by law to reconstitute the lost title. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the documents Marcelino submitted did not constitute valid sources to reconstitute the original title as required by law.

Uploaded by

Raiza Sarte
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

G.R. No.

195726

MARCELINO DELA PAZ, Petitioner


vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

DECISION

MARTIRES, J.:

THE FACTS

On 5 June 2007, Marcelino Dela Paz (Marcelino) filed a verified petition for reconstitution of TCT No.
206714. This parcel of land was the subject of an extra judicial settlement dated 23 October 2000 among
the heirs of Luz Dela Paz, namely: Franklin S. Bortado, Sr., Franklin P. Bortado, Jr., and Marylou Bortado.
Thereafter, Marcelino and his mother, Jenny Rose Dela Paz, bought the subject land on 23 November
2005.

Based on the petition for reconstitution, the original copy of TCT No. 206714 was destroyed by fire that
razed the Quezon City Hall building on 11 June 1988, thus, the owner's duplicate copy was lost as
evidenced by the affidavit of loss duly registered and recorded with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon
City. Marcelino submitted the following as evidence: (1) a photocopy of TCT No. 206714; (2) real
property tax declarations; (3) receipts of payments of real property tax; and (4) the land's sketch plan
and subdivision plan.

Marcelino likewise submitted a Land Registration Authority (LRA) report stating that the plan and
technical description of the property may be used as basis for the inscription of the technical description
on the reconstituted title. In addition, Marcelino submitted a certified microfilm copy of the plan and a
technical description of the property on file with the LRA, which he claimed to be a valid basis and
reference for reconstitution. Marcelino believed that these documents corroborate the other
documentary evidence covering the subject property.

After considering the evidence presented, the RTC granted the petition and ordered the reconstitution
of TCT No. 206714 based on the approved subdivision plan and technical description submitted.

When the case was elevated before the CA, the RTC's decision was reversed and set aside, and the
petition for reconstitution was dismissed. The CA was not convinced that the evidence adduced in
support of the petition for reconsideration was enough.

Issue:

Whether Marcelino presented competent proof that TCT No. 206714 may be reconstituted based on the
documentary evidence he submitted

Held:

The petition lacks competent evidentiary basis to reconstitute TCT No. 206714.
In his petition, Marcelino enumerates the documents he had submitted, which the RTC relied upon in
granting the petition for reconstitution.

In sum, all these documentary evidence being considered, the court find that not one of them is a
competent source for reconstitution.

The requirements under R.A. No. 26 are indispensable and must be strictly complied with. In a
reconstitution proceeding, the petitioner is burdened to adduce in evidence the documents in the order
stated in Section 3 of R.A. No. 26 as sources of the deed to be reconstituted, and likewise burdened to
prove the execution or existence of the original copy of the title, which is the copy on file with the
Registry of Deeds, and the contents thereof. Here, Marcelino failed to do both; thus, the CA did not
commit a reversible error in reversing the RTC's order, and in dismissing the petition for reconstitution.

You might also like