502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the

Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769

*
G.R. No. 148025. August 13, 2004.

IN RE: RECONSTITUTION OF THE ORIGINAL COPY

AS WELL AS THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE COPY OF TCT
NO. T-38769, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
petitioners, vs. SPOUSES LORENZO and FELICIANA
MATEO, respondents.

Reconstitution; Evidence; Failure to present any of the

documents enumerated under Section 3 of R. A. No. 26 as bases for
reconstitution, the rule on secondary evidence under Section 5,
Rule 130 applies.—The rule on secondary evidence under Sec. 5 of
Rule 130 applies. Section 5 of the rule provides: SEC. 5. When
original document is unavailable.—When the original document
has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of
its unavailability without bad faith on its part, may prove its
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

503

VOL. 436, AUGUST 13, 2004 503

In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769

Same; Same; The sufficiency of the proof offered as a predicate

for the admission of an allegedly lost document lies within the
juridical discretion of the trial court under all the circumstances of
the particular case.—As the immediately quoted provision of the
Rules directs, the order of presentation of secondary evidence is:
existence, execution, loss, contents. The order may, however, be
changed if necessary in the discretion of the court. The sufficiency
of the proof offered as a predicate for the admission of an allegedly
lost document lies within the judicial discretion of the trial court
under all the circumstances of the particular case.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for petitioner.
     Simplicio M. Sevilleja for respondents.

CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

 
On April 30, 1997, spouses Lorenzo and Feliciana Mateo
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan a
petition for “RECONSTITUTION OF THE ORIGINAL
COPY AS WELL AS THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE COPY
OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. T-38769”
issued on July 16, 1971 by the Registry of Deeds of Bataan
in the name of one Jose Tan.
From the Mateos’ petition for reconstitution, it is
gathered that Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
38769 covers two parcels of land forming part of Lot No.
979 of Bagac, Bataan Cadastre situated in barrio Cabog-
Cabog, Bagac, Bataan, more particularly described as
follows:

2.a. A parcel of land Lot No. 1186 (before Lot No. 3 Sgs-3094
being a portion of Lot No. 979) of the Cadastral Survey of Bagac,
Cad. Case No. 18, L.R.C. Cad. Rec. No. 1095), situated in the
Barrio of Cabog-Cabog, Mun. of Bacag, Province of Bataan.
Bounded on the NE., points 2 to 4 by Lot 321, Pilar Cadastre; on
the SW., points 4 to 5 by Lot No. 1189; on the S., points 5 to 7 Lot
1187; and on the W., points 7 to 8 and 8-1 by Lot 1185; and points
1-2 by Lot No. 1184. Containing an area of TWO HUNDRED
EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX (208,956)
square meters, more or less.
2.b. A parcel of land Lot No. 1187 (before Lot No. Sgs-3094
being a portion of Lot No. 979) of the Cadastral Survey of Bagac,
Cad. Case No. 18 L.R.C. Cad. Rec. No. 1095), situated in the
Barrio of Cabog-Cabog, Mun. of

504

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769

Bagac, Prov. of Bataan. Bounded on the NE, points 10-1 by lot No.
1189; on the SE., points 1-4 by Lot No. 1188; on the SW, points 4-
5 by Lot No. 7, Sgs-2700; on the W., points 5-6 by Lot No. 6 Sgs-
2701; and on the NW., points 6-8 by Lot No. 1185—and points 8-
10 by Lot No. 1186. x x x containing an area of TWO HUNDRED
THIRTY NINE THOUSAND THREE 1HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE
(239,385) square meters, more or less. ; (Italics supplied)

that they acquired from Jose Tan the above-described

parcels of land by purchase on September 3, 1978 by Deed
of Sale dated September 3, 1978; that the original copy of
TCT No. T-38769 on file at the Registry of Deeds of Bataan
is missing and could not be located despite efforts to do so,
hence, deemed lost; that while Lorenzo Mateo was in
possession of the owner’s duplicate copy of the title, “due to
his frequent reassignment as a former military officer to
different places from 1978 up to his retirement on
September 3, 1990, he misplaced said title among his files,
although he has a xerox copy [thereof]”; and that despite
efforts to locate the owner’s duplicate copy of the title, the
same proved futile and is now deemed lost.
At the witness stand, Lorenzo Mateo testified to the fact
of loss of the owner’s duplicate copy of the title as follows:

[ATTY. SEVILLEJA:]
Q: Who has been keeping that owner’s copy of the title
since the execution of that deed of sale on September 3,
1978?
A I used to keep it but since at that time I was still in the
military active service, I usually bring along the
document with me up to Leyte, Tacloban, but
unfortunately one strong typhoon hit the area and the
quarter I used to live at that time as aregional
commander of Region 8, was totally blown out by a very
strong typhoon and during the evacuation of the things
including a cabinet, it was later found out to be missing
and after all my efforts to locate the same, I can’t locate
the same, although 2
I have a xerox copy of the said title
filed in my office. (Italics supplied);

And he presented documentary evidence consisting of,

among others, carbon copy of a September 3, 1978 Deed of
Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Jose Tan in favor of
the Mateos (Exh.
_______________

1 RTC Records at p. 1.
2 TSN, April 23, 1998 at p. 5.

505

VOL. 436, AUGUST 13, 2004 505

In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769

3
“H”) for and in consideration of P50,000.00 pesos, which
document bears a rubber stamp impression of the Bureau
of Internal Revenue, Balanga, Bataan reading “RECEIVED
APL 16, 1997” and which appears to have been notarized4
by Felipe V. Abenojar, Notary Public “Until Dec. 31, 1978”;
photocopy of TCT No.5 T-38769 issued to Jose Tan on March
14, 1972 (Exh. “I”) June 30, 1995 letter 6
of “B/Gen.
LORENZO M. MATEO (Ret.)” (Exh. “L”) addressed to the
Register of Deeds, Balanga, Bataan, informing the latter
that the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-38769 was
missing and deemed lost following futile efforts to locate it
and requesting him not to entertain any transaction
covering the lands covered by the title; certified
7
photocopy
of a decision of March 17, 1969 (Exh. “M”) rendered by
then Judge Tito V. Tizon of the then Court of First Instance
(CFI) of Bataan at Balanga in CADASTRAL CASE NO. 18,
LRC CAD REC. NO. 1095 LOT NO. 979 (PORTION)
BAGAC CADASTRE, Sgs-3094, Sgs-3119, Sgs-3120, Sgs-
3121, “PETITION TO REOPEN CADASTRAL
PROCEEDING UNDER REP. ACT 931 AS AMENDED BY
REP. ACT 2061 AND TO SEGREGATE AND
ADJUDICATE TO PETITIONERS A PORTION OF LOT
979 OF BAGAC CADASTRE, CECILIA BRIONES, et al.,
Petitioners,” which decision awarded several lots forming
part of Lot No. 979 of Bagac, Bataan Cadastre to six
persons including Donato Echivarria, alleged to be the
person from whom Jose Tan purchased the lands, title to
which is subject of the present case for reconstitution;
photocopy
8
of a June 5, 1969 Order issued by Judge Tito V.
Tizon in Cadastral Case No. 18 for the Issuance of Decrees
9
in Cadastral Cases (Exh. “N”); March 11, 1971 letter of
Acting Clerk of Court of the CFI of Bataan Antonio C.
Quintos to Mr. Vicente A. Querol, Assistant Chief, Docket
Section, Land Registration Commission, Manila reading:

_______________
 3 RTC Records at p. 190.
4 The last two digits of the year “1978” (expiration of the notarial
commission) appear superimposed as do the same two digits in the entry
after “Series” appearing at the bottom left portion of the reverse side of
the one-page deed.
5 Id., at p. 7.
6 Id., at p. 193.
7 Id., at pp. 194-199.
8 Id., at p. 200.
9 Exh. “R”, Id., at p. 203.

506

506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769

In reply to your letter dated March 9, 1971 requesting this

Office for one more certified copy of the decision rendered by this
Court in the petitions for cadastral reopenings of Jesus Gutierrez,
et al., Engracia Salaya, et al., and Cecilia Briones, et al., please be
advised that the undersigned could not possibly furnish you with
the same in view of the fact that the original records of said
petitions are presently with the Department of Justice being used
in connection with the investigation of the administrative charge
against Honorable Judge Tito V. Tizon of this Court.
Said petitions were taken by Senior Prosecutor
10
Vidal M. Tombo
on July 16, 1969 as per receipt of this office. (Italics supplied);
11
photocopy of a RECEIPT (Exh. “T”) purporting to show
that one, whose signature is illegible
12
but who is alluded to
as NBI agent Ramon Befetel, received on March 8, 1973
for VIDAL M. TOMBO, Special Assistant, Department of
Justice, from the Register of Deeds of Balanga, Bataan the
therein listed 93 documents including “TCT No. T-386769–
Jose Tan”; 1997 Declaration of Real Property in the name 13
of JOSE TAN of 41-D Tangile St., Quezon City (Exh. “U”) ;
and 1997 Declaration of 14
Real Property in the name of
JOSE TAN. (Exh. “U-1”)
Aside from Lorenzo Mateo, Jose Y. de la Cruz,
vaultkeeper since 1972 of the Bataan Registry of Deeds,
took the witness stand, the latter declaring that the
original of the TCT was taken by “a Fiscal Tombo.” Also
testifying was Mona Liza Esguerra, Chief of the Records
Division of the Department of Justice since 1980, who
declared that “Atty. Tombo” did not surrender the title to
the Records Section and she did not know whether he is
still alive.
 Branch 2 of the RTC Balanga, holding as follows:

Since this is a petition for the reconstitution of a transfer

certificate of title the applicable provision is Sec. 3 of Republic No.
26, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6732.
That section provides that:
SEC. 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted
from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be
available, in the following order:

_______________

10 Ibid.
11 Id., at pp. 205-207.
12 TSN, June 2, 1998 at p. 20.
13 Id., at pp. 208-209.
14 Id., at p. 209.

507

VOL. 436, AUGUST 13, 2004 507

In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769

(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) That co-owner’s mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of the certificate
of title;
(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the
register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
(d) The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the Registry of
Deeds, containing the description of the property, or an
authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had been
registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer
certificate of title was issued;
(e) A document on file in the Registry of Deeds by which the property,
the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged,
leased, or incumbered, or an authenticated copy of said
document showing that its original had been registered, and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is
sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed
certificate of title.

None of these sources ha[s] been presented by the

petitioners.
It appears also that the original certificate of title is still
missing and has to be reconstituted on the basis of the sources
enumerated in Sec. 2 of RA 26. Thus, the authenticated decree of
registration could be a basis for the reconstitution of the original
certificate of title but not of the transfer certificate of title. In this
case, the decree was issued in the name of Donato Exchivarria;
however, there is no showing15 how the parcels of land in question
were transferred to Jose Tan. (Emphasis and italics supplied),

DENIED the petition by Decision of September 14, 1998.

The Mateos’ Motion for Reconsideration of the trial

court’s decision having been denied, they appealed to the
Court of Appeals (CA) upon the following:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

1. The trial court—Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial

Region, Branch 2, Balanga, Bataan,—erred in declaring
that the Original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-38769 is “missing”;
2. The trial court erred in denying the instant petition,
despite overwhelming evidence, documentary and oral,
showing sufficient and

_______________

15 Id., at pp. 213-214.

508

508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769

proper basis for the reconstitution of the lost original and owner’s
duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-38769;
16

3. And the trial court erred in dismissing the instant petition;

 
By Decision of May 2, 2001, the appellate court, citing
Section 3 of R.A. No. 26 which enumerates the sources from
which TCTs shall be reconstituted, declared as follows:

Since the provision contains the qualification—“as may be

available”—the presentation of any of the sources enumerated
above is sufficient.
The trial court erred in not giving weight to the photocopy of
the owner’s duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-38769
(Exhibit “I”) as a secondary evidence falling under Section 3(a) or
even Section 3(f) as abovequoted.
 The Rules of Court has provided a procedure by which the copy
of the original document is admissible as evidence, hence:

Section 5. When original document is unavailable.—When the original

document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a
copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (Rule 130, Rules of Court)

Based on jurisprudence, the aforecited provision requires

compliance with the following order of proof: “existence;
execution; loss; content.” A variation in the order may be allowed
in the exercise of the court’s discretion. (De Vera vs. Aguilar, 218
SCRA 602, 606 [1993] and; Lazatin v. Campos, 92 SCRA 250, 262
[1979]).
The existence, execution and contents of the subject certificate
were proven by the submission of the following evidence [of the
Mateos]. x x x
xxx
With respect to the loss of the owner’s copy of the subject
certificate, petitioner Lorenzo Mateo testified [on how it was lost].
xxx
[T]he requirements of the rules of court have been complied
[with] for the purpose of introducing secondary evidence as the
exception to the best evidence rule (Section 3 and 5, Rule 130,
Rules of Court). Appellants presented to the trial court a
copy of the document (Exhibit “I”), the cause of its
unavailability which is the loss of the records while in the
possession of the National Bureau of Investigation and the
testimonies of

_______________

16 CA Rollo at p. 31.

509

VOL. 436, AUGUST 13, 2004 509

In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769

appellant Lorenzo Mateo, Jose Y. dela Cruz and Mona Liza

Esguerra. The testimonies of the last two witnesses, being public
officials, enjoy the disputable presumption of regularity of official
duties which has remained unrebutted (Section 3(m), Rule 131,
Rules of Court). The photocopy of the subject certificate
(Exhibit “I”), as a secondary evidence of the original
thereof, is the source listed under Section 3(a) of Republic
Act No. 26 and thus, a legally-recognized basis for the
reconstitution of the certificate.
Even a strict interpretation of section 3(a) of Republic Act No.
26 will not prevent Us from giving probative weight to the
photocopy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 38769 (Exhibit “I”)
because the document may likewise fall under subparagraph (f) of
the same provision, that is, “Any other document which, in the
judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for
reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.” In Heirs of
Felicidad Dizon v. Discaya, 303 SCRA 197, 207 (1999), the
provision of Section 2(f) which is identical to Section 3(f), both of
Republic Act No. 26, has been interpreted to refer to similar
documents previously enumerated therein, that is, those
mentioned in Sections 2(a), (b), (c) and (d).” Exhibit “I” is the
photocopy of the owner’s copy of Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 38769 expressly listed in Section 3(a) of the same law
and being not only similar but identical thereto, thus satisfies the
requirement of the law. Even Decree No. 133969 marked as
Exhibits “O”, “O-1” 17
to “O-2”, is another available source under
Section (f) thereof. (Italics in the original; emphasis and italics
supplied)

The CA accordingly rendered judgment in favor of the

Mateos and disposed in this wise:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby

GRANTED. The Orders dated September 14, 1998 and January
22, 1999, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one
entered declaring the lost original copy of TCT No. T-38769 of the
Register of Deeds of Balanga, Bataan, as well as the lost owner’s
duplicate copy thereof, as null and void, and ordering the Land
Registration Authority and/or the Register of Deeds to reconstitute
the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-38769 in the
name of Jose Tan for Lots Nos. 1186 and 1187, on the basis of the
decision dated March 17, 1969 (Exh. “M”), Decree No. N-133969
dated March 11, 1971 (Exh. “O”) and xerox copy of TCT No. 38769
(Exh. “I”), and for aforenamed public officials to issue, upon
payment of the lawful fees therefor to petitioners-appellants the
owner’s duplicate copy of said TCT No. T-38769 in the name of
Jose Tan in exactly the same terms and conditions in lieu of the
lost one. No costs.

_______________

17 Id., at pp. 113-117.

510

510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769
18
“SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original; italics supplied)”

 
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari
lodged by the REPUBLIC upon the sole ground that the CA
erred “in giving evidentiary weight to the alleged
photocopy of the title”—basis of its order for the
reconstitution of the original and owner’s copy of the title.
Petitioner argues that “when the subject of inquiry is
the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other
than the original document itself except in the instances
mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,”
adding that “mere photocopies of documents are
inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule,” 19
it citing
Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals.
Petitioner further argues that before secondary evidence
may be admitted, the proponent must first establish the
former existence
20
of the instrument, citing Lazatin v.
Campos et al.
Petitioner concludes that there being no showing that
the TCT previously existed, the photocopy not having been
authenticated by the Registry of Deeds of Bataan,
admission of such copy21
violates the best evidence rule, citing
People v. Sto. Tomas.
Finally, petitioner, passing on the receipt dated March
8, 1973 covering the pulling out of 93 documents from the
Bataan Registry of Deeds including the TCT subject of the
case and its mother title, the Original Certificate of Title
(OCT), makes the following observations:

The 1997 tax declarations (Exhs. “U” and “U-1) as well as the
tax receipts (Exhs. “K” to “K-7”) do not prove the prior valid
existence of TCT No. 38769 since these evidence are recent
documents that were prepared after both original and owner’s
duplicate of said certificate of title were supposedly lost.
Neither does the receipt dated March 8, 1973 prove the prior
valid existence of said TCT-38769. Said evidence, in fact, put to
doubt such claim. The receipt dated March 8, 1973 (Exh. “T”–“T-
3”) shows that the said certificate of title is of doubtful origin since
it was being investigated

_______________

18 Id., at pp. 117-118.

19 300 SCRA 565 (1998).
20 92 SCRA 250 (1979).
 21 138 SCRA 206 (1985).

511

VOL. 436, AUGUST 13, 2004 511

In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769

by the National Bureau of Investigation. Curiously, since the

time the said title was taken by the NBI in 1969, there was
no evidence of any effort from Jose Tan, the alleged
registered owner, to cause its return to the Bataan
Registry of Deeds. Such prolonged inaction may be deemed as
an implied admission of the title’s dubious origin.
Reconstitution requires that the subject title was validly
existing at the time of the loss. An invalid title cannot be
reconstituted.
The Decision [of Judge Tizon] dated March 17, 1969, (Exh. “M”)
and the Decree dated March 11, 1971 issued pursuant thereto, do
not constitute sufficient basis for granting the reconstitution of
TCT No. T-38769 in the name of Jose Tan considering that, at
most, these documents tend to establish the original registration
of the subject property in the name of Donato Echiverri (sic).
As correctly noted by the trial court [Branch 2 of the RTC of
Balanga], “there is no showing how the parcels of land in question
were transferred to Jose Tan” (p. 5, Decision dated September 14,
1998). The said order and decree, therefore, establish only the
prior existence of OCT No. N-205
22
but not that of TCT No. T-38769
in the name of Jose Tan. (Emphasis in the original; italics
supplied)

 
The CA’s reliance, as another basis of reconstitution, on
the March 17, 1969 certified photocopy of Judge Tizon’s
decision awarding to Donato Echivarria from whose OCT
the TCT subject of reconstitution was transferred does not
lie for, in the first place, as noted by the trial court, “there
is no showing how the parcels of land were transferred to
Jose Tan,” the Mateos’ predecessor-in-interest.
Section 3 of R.A. No. 26, “AN ACT PROVIDING A
SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION
OF TORRENS CERTIFICATES OF TITLE LOST OR
DESTROYED,” which has been quoted by the trial court in
its decision, enumerates the sources-documents-bases of a
reconstitution of a transfer certificate of title. To repeat,
they are, in the following order:

1. the owner’s duplicate of the title

 2. the co-owner’s mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of
the title
3. a certified copy of the title previously issued by the
register of deeds or by a legal custodian

_______________

22 Rollo at pp. 19-20.

512

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769

4. an authenticated copy of the decree of registration

or patent, as the case may be, pursuant to which
the OCT was issued
5. a document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which
the property . . . is . . . encumbered or an
authenticated copy of said document showing that
its original had been registered; and any other
document which, in the judgment of the court, is
sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost
or destroyed title.

 
Since, except for the last above-enumerated document,
the Mateos have failed to present any of the other
documents, the rule on secondary evidence under Sec. 5 of
Rule 130 applies. Section 5 of the rule provides:

SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable.—When the

original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on
its part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its
contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated.

 
As the immediately quoted provision of the Rules
directs, the order of presentation of secondary evidence is:
existence, execution, loss, contents. The order may, however,
be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court. The
sufficiency of the proof offered as a predicate for the
admission of an allegedly lost document lies within the
judicial discretion of the trial 23court under all the
circumstances of the particular case.
Assuming that the existence and execution of the
original of the TCT has been satisfactorily shown, and that
it was taken in 1973 by the Department of Justice and the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in connection with
the investigation of the judge on whose order the OCT from
which the TCT was transferred, which OCT was also taken
by said government agencies, there is no satisfactory
showing that the TCT has been lost.

_______________

23 Lazatin v. Campos, 92 SCRA 250 (1979).

513

VOL. 436, AUGUST 13, 2004 513

In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769

 
By Lorenzo
24
Mateo’s own information, a year before he
testified, he talked to the NBI agent, Ramon Befetel, who
received the 93 documents for Vidal Tombo. Why said 25
agent, who admittedly was “still in the NBI main office,”
was not presented to shed light on the whereabouts of the
TCT, no reason has been proffered.
In fine, the Mateos have not satisfactorily shown that
the original of the TCT has been lost or is no longer
available. On this score alone, the Mateos’ petition for
reconstitution fails.
In any event, even assuming that the original of the
TCT was lost or is no longer available, not only is the
photocopy 26
of the alleged owner’s duplicate copy thereof—
Exh. “1” partly illegible. When, where and under what
circumstances the photocopy was taken and where it was
kept to spare it from being also “lost” were not even shown.
These, not to mention the conduct by the Department of
Justice and NBI of an investigation behind the issuance of
the OCT and TCT caution and lead this Court to rule
against the sufficiency of the Mateos’ evidence and
propriety of a grant of their petition for reconstitution.
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the Court of
Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
September 14, 1998 Decision of Branch 2 of the Regional
Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan denying the petition for
reconstitution in Cadastre Case No. R-237-97,
 “Reconstitution of the Original Copy as Well as the Owner’s
Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38769; Sps. Lorenzo M. Mateo
and Feliciana Jacob-Mateo, Petitioners,” is hereby
REINSTATED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
 

Panganiban (Chairman) and Corona, JJ., concur.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., On Leave.

_______________

24 TSN, June 2, 1998 at p. 21.

25 Id., at p. 22.
26 Vide note 5.

514

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gabuay vs. Oversea Paper Supply, Inc.

Assailed decision reversed and set aside, that of the trial

court reinstated.

Note.—Republic Act No. 26 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. (Republic vs. Planes, 381 SCRA
215 [2002])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.