Tahanan Development vs CA 118 SCRA 273 11/15/1982

FACTS: The records of the case show that on October 5, 1977, private respondent hereinafter referred to as the

Pascuals, claiming as intestate heirs of Manuela Aquial who died on January 26, 1967, filed a petition for judicial
reconstitution of lost certificate of title under Republic Act No. 26 docketed as Reconstitution Case No. 504P, Land
Registration Case No. 9368 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Manuela Aquial, the petitioners' predecessor-in-
interest, was the registered owner of those contiguous lands, Lots 2 and 4 San Dionisio, Paranaque, Rizal now,
Cupang, Muntinlupa, Rizal. The private respondents said that original certificate of title, original and owner's
duplicate copies, covering said lands have been lost or destroyed in the last World War II and diligent efforts to
locate the same have been all in vain; that said title was subsisting and in force at the time it was lost or destroyed,
free from liens and encumbrances of any kind and nature up to the present; that there is no record of any sales
patent, sales certificate or any land grant over said lands to any person or entity; that no Co-owner's, Mortgagee's,
Lessee's or any lien holder's copy of said Original Certificate of Title have ever been issued.

ISSUES:

Whether the petition for reconstitution should be granted.

RULING: The Court denied the petition for reconstitution. The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
petition for reconstitution.

Rationale:

Republic Act No. 26 entitled "An act providing a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of
Title lost or destroyed" approved on September 25, 1946 confers jurisdiction or authority to the Court of First
Instance to hear and decide petitions for judicial reconstitution. The Act specifically provides the special
requirements and mode of procedure that must be followed before the court can properly act, assume and acquire
jurisdiction or authority over the petition and grant the reconstitution prayed for. These requirements and procedure
are mandatory. The Petition for Reconstitution must allege certain specific jurisdictional fact and the notice of
hearing must be published in the Official Gazette and posted in particular places and the same sent or notified to
specified persons. Sections 12 and 13 of the Act provide specifically the mandatory requirements and procedure to
be followed.

These sections state as follows:

Sec. 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c),

3(d), 3(e), and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his
assigns, or any person having an interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain, among other things, the
following: (a) that the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no co-owner's,
mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate had been issued, or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed: (c)
the location, area and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if
any, which do not belong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or
improvements; (e) the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, of the owners
of the adjoining properties and of all persons who may have any interest in the property; (f) a detailed description of
the encumbrances, if any, affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting the
property have been presented for registration, or, if there be any, the registration thereof has not been accomplished,
as yet. All the documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in support of the petition for
reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with the same: Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be
made exclusively from sources enumerated in section 2(f) or 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further
accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land
Registration Office, or with a certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of the covering the same
property.

Sec. 13. The court shall cause a notice of the petition, filed under the preceding section, to be published, at the
expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of
the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at the provincial building and of the municipal building at least
thirty days prior to the date of hearing. The court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered
mail or otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein whose address is known, at least
thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Said notice shall state, among other things, the number of the lost or
destroyed certificate of title, if known, the name of the registered owner, the names of the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, the owners of the adjoining properties and an other interested parties, the location, area
and boundaries of the property, and the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file
their claim or objections to the petition. The petitioner shall at the hearing, submit proof of the publication, posting
and service of the notice as directed by the court.

As the Court have earlier quoted in fun the petition for reconstitution in Reconstitution Case No. 504P and
substantially the Notice of Hearing issued by the court published in the Official Gazette together with the
Certification of Posting by the Deputy Sheriff, it would not be a difficult task to check and verify whether the strict
and mandatory requirements of Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26 have been faithfully complied with by
therein petitioners Pascuals, now the private respondents here.

Upon a cursory reading of both the petition for reconstitution and the notice of hearing, it is at once apparent that
Tahanan has not been named, cited or indicated therein as the owner, occupant or possessor of property adjacent to
Lot 2, title to which is sought to be reconstituted. Neither does the petition and the notice state nor mention that
Tahanan is the occupant or possessor of a portion of said Lot 2. The result of this omission or failure is that Tahanan
was never notified of the petition for reconstitution and the hearings or proceedings therein.

We also find that the Notice of Hearing directed that copies thereof be posted only in the bulletin board of the Court
of First Instance of Pasay City and no more, whereas the law specifically require that the notice of the petition shall
be posted on the main entrance of the municipality or city on which the land is situated, at the provincial building
and at the municipal building at least 30 days prior to the date of hearing. In the instant case as certified to by
Deputy Sheriff Arsenio C. de Guzman, the Notice of Hearing was posted on the bulletin board of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch located at the Hall of Justice, City Hall Building, Pasay City. Evidently, the
Notice of Hearing was not posted at the main entrance of the provincial building in Pasig, Rizal. It was not posted at
the main entrance of the municipal building of Muntinlupa where the land is now comprised in Barrio Cupang, or at
least in the municipal building of Paranaque where Barrio San Dionisio was then embraced.