Castillo v Republic, G.R. No.

182980, June 22, 2011

Petitioner filed on March 7, 2002 a Petition for Reconstitution and Issuance of Second Owners
Copy of TCT No. 16755.

Have the trial court furnished the LRA with a duplicate copy of petition with a note stating that
“no tracing cloth of plan and blueprint of plan attached” as requested by the LRA in its letter the
trial court ordered the petitioner to submit within 15 days from the receipt of the order the
original of the technical description of the parcel of land covered by the loss/destroyed
certificate of title. The court further ordered the petitioner to supply the names and addresses
of the occupants of the subject property. The petitioner said that there was no actual occupant
in the said lot.
Fernando, the petitioner’s son on his father’s behalf stated that the title was issued in the name
of his parents and that his mother died in 1982. Fernando did not mention any sibling and
further testified that the petitioner executed an affidavit of loss which stated that he misplaced
his owner’s copy of the certificate of title and that no other persons are claiming interest over
the land.

ISSUE: Whether the Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the case
Ruling: NO

Section 12 of R.A. No. 26 describes the requirements for a petition for reconstitution.
We compared the requirements of Section 12 to the allegations in the petition.
The petitioner complied with items (a), (b), (f) and (g): in paragraph 5 of the petition, he alleged
the loss of his copy of TCT No. T-16755; paragraph 6 declared that no co-owners copy of the
duplicate title has been issued; paragraph 10 stated that the property covered by the lost TCT is
free from liens and encumbrances; and paragraph 11 stated that there are no deeds or
instruments presented for or pending registration with the Register of Deeds. There was
substantial compliance as to item (c): the location of the property is mentioned in paragraph 2;
while the boundaries of the property, although not specified in the petition, refer to an annex
attached to the petition. The petition did not mention anything pertaining to item (d). There
was a failure to fully comply with item (e). By Fernando’s admission, there exist two other co-
owners of the property covered by TCT No. T-16755. Fernando’s siblings Emma and Elpidio
were not mentioned anywhere in the petition.
The non-compliance with the requirements prescribed in Sections 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26 is
fatal. Hence, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution.