[G.R. No. 128531.

October 26, 1999]

REPUBLIC OF TE PILIPPINE!, petitioner, vs. COURT OF "PPE"L! #$%
&ICENTE L. 'UP"NGCO, (R., respondents.
) E C I ! I O N
*EN)O+", J.,
The question for decision in this case is whether in a proceeding for the issuance of
an owners duplicate certificate of title, the Solicitor General is required to be notified,
such that failure to give such notice would render the proceedings void. Both the
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled in the negative. ence, this petition
for review on certiorari.
The facts are as follows!
"rivate respondent #icente $upangco is the owner of a unit in a condo%iniu%
building in &egaspi Street, 'a(ati Cit), as evidenced b) Certificate of Title *o.
+,-.. Because his aforesaid certificate could not be located, he filed, on /anuar) 0.,
122-, in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13,, 'a(ati, a petition for the issuance of a
new duplicate certificate of title in lieu of his lost cop), pursuant to 4152 of ".6. *o. 1702
8"ropert) Registration 6ecree9. The trial court ordered the Register of 6eeds of 'a(ati
to co%%ent on the petition and thereafter set the case for initial hearing.
:n ;ebruar) 11, 122-, the Registrar of 6eeds of 'a(ati filed a %anifestation that
she had no ob<ection to the petition. After hearing private respondents evidence, the
trial court rendered, on 6ece%ber 17, 1227, its decision granting the petition, declaring
as invalid the %issing cop) of the certificate of title, and ordering the Registrar of 6eeds
of 'a(ati to issue a new owners duplicate certificate of title in the na%e of private
respondent. A cop) of this decision was furnished the Solicitor General.
:n ;ebruar) 7, 122,, the Solicitor General %oved for reconsideration of the trial
courts decision on the ground that no cop) of private respondents petition or notice
thereof had been given to hi%. is %otion was, however, denied. The :ffice of the
Solicitor General then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which, in a
decision
=1>
dated 'arch 7, 122+, affir%ed the order of the trial court. ence, this petition.
"rivate respondents petition before the trial court was anchored on 4152 of ".6.
*o. 1702 8"ropert) Registration 6ecree9 which provides!
S?C. 152. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. @ An case of lost or
theft of an owners duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent b)
the owner or b) so%eone in his behalf to the Register of 6eeds of the province or cit)
where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. Af a duplicate certificate is
lost or destro)ed, or cannot be produced b) a person appl)ing for the entr) of a new
certificate to hi% or for the registration of an) instru%ent, a sworn state%ent of the facts
of such loss or destruction %a) be filed b) the registered owner or other person in
interest and registered.
Bpon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court %a), after
notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, which shall
contain a %e%orandu% of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate
certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to li(e faith and credit as the original
duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this decree.
=0>
8?%phasis added9
*othing in the law, however, requires that the :ffice of the Solicitor General be
notified and heard in proceeding for the issuance of an owners duplicate certificate of
title. An contrast, 403 of the sa%e law, involving original registration proceedings,
specificall) %entions the Solicitor General as a%ong those who %ust be notified of the
petition. Si%ilarl), 43, provides that the petition for registration in cadastral proceedings
%ust be filed b) the Solicitor General, in behalf of the 6irector of &ands.
The Solicitor General, on the other hand, invo(es 437879, Chapter 10, Title AAA, Boo(
A# of the 12.+ Ad%inistrative Code which provides!
S?C. 37. Powers and Functions. @ The :ffice of the Solicitor General shall represent
the Govern%ent of the "hilippines, its agencies and instru%entalities and its officials
and agents in an) litigation, proceeding, investigation or %atter requiring the services of
law)ers. Chen authoriDed b) the "resident or head of the office concerned, it shall also
represent govern%ent owned or controlled corporations. The :ffice of the Solicitor
General shall discharge duties requiring the services of law)ers. At shall have the
following specific powers and functions!
. . . .
879 Represent the Govern%ent in all land registration and related proceedings. . .
e contends that, in view of this provision, it was %andator) for the trial court to notif)
hi% of private respondents petition and that its failure to do so rendered the
proceedings before it null and void.
=3>
The contention has no %erit. The provision of the Ad%inistrative Code relied upon
b) the Solicitor General is not new. At is si%pl) a codification of 418e9 of ".6. *o. -+.
86efining the "owers and ;unctions of the :ffice of the Solicitor General9 which
si%ilarl) provided!
S?CTA:* 1. Powers and Functions.@ 819 The :ffice of the Solicitor General shall
represent the Govern%ent of the "hilippines, its agencies and instru%entalities and its
officials and agents in an) litigation, proceeding, investigation or %atter requiring the
services of a law)er. Chen authoriDed b) the "resident or head of the :ffice
concerned, it shall also represent govern%ent owned or controlled corporations. The
:ffice of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Govern%ent and, as
such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of a law)er. At shall have the
following specific powers and functions!
. . . .
e. Represent the Govern%ent in all land registration and related proceedings. . . .
At is onl) now that the Solicitor General is clai%ing the right to be notified of
proceedings for the issuance of the owners duplicate certificate of title. Andeed, the
onl) basis for such clai% is that the :ffice of the Solicitor General represents the
govern%ent in land registration and related proceedings. ?ven so, however, the
request for representation should have co%e fro% the Registrar of 6eeds of 'a(ati who
was the proper part) to the case. ere, there is no dispute that the Registrar of 6eeds
of 'a(ati was notified of private respondents petition, but she %anifested that her office
had no ob<ection thereto. The Solicitor General does not question the propriet) of the
action and %anifestation of the Registrar of 6eeds, nor does he give an) reason wh)
private respondents petition for the issuance of a new owners duplicate certificate of
title should be denied. Anstead, he clai%s that the fact that he was given a cop) of the
decision is an ad%ission that he is entitled to be notified of all incidents relating to the
proceedings.
This is not correct. Considering that the law does not i%pose such notice
require%ent in proceedings for the issuance of a new owners duplicate certificate of
title, the lac( of notice to the Solicitor General, as counsel for the Registrar of 6eeds,
was at %ost onl) a for%al and not a <urisdictional defect.
This case should be distinguished fro% our rulings in cadastral registration
cases
=->
and original land registration proceedings
=7>
which require that the Solicitor
General be notified of decisions and hold as decisive, for the purpose of deter%ining the
ti%eliness of the appeal filed b) the govern%ent, the date of his receipt of the decisions
therein and not that of the 6irector of &ands or of his other representatives.
=,>
The issue
and the applicable laws in those cases are different.
The i%portant role of the :ffice of the solicitor General as the govern%ents law
office cannot be overe%phasiDed. Ats powers and functions, however, should not be
rigidl) applied in such a %anner that innocuous o%issions, as in the case at bar, should
be visited with so grave a consequence as the nullification of proceedings. After all, no
pre<udice to the govern%ent has been shown.
-EREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is A;;AR'?6.
!O OR)ERE).
Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), and Quisumin!, JJ., on official leave.
=1>
"er /ustice AliciaEAustria 'artineD and concurred in b) /ustices Gloria C. "aras and
Bernardo &&. Salas.
=0>
This provision is ta(en fro% 4152 of Act. *o. -2, 8&and Registration Act9 which
si%ilarl) provided!
Af a duplicate certificate is lost or destro)ed, or cannot be produced b) a grantee, heir,
devisee, assignee, or other person appl)ing for the entr) of a new certificate to hi% or
for the registration of an) instru%ent, a suggestion of the fact of such loss or destruction
%a) be filed b) the registered owner or other person in interest and registered. The
Court %a) thereupon, upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in
interest, after notice and hearing, direct the issue of a new duplicate certificate, which
shall contain a %e%orandu% of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate
certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to li(e faith and credit as the original
duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as the original duplicate for all the purposes
of this Act. 8?%phasis added9
=3>
"etition, pp. .E15F "ollo, pp. 13E1,.
=->
Republic #. Court of Appeals, 1-. SCRA -.5 812.+9.
=7>
Republic #. 'endoDa, 015 "hil. --7 812.39F Republic #. "olo, .2 SCRA 33 812+29.
=,>
$upra.