Fake reconstituted title

A law each day (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison The Phili ine S!a" #$%&&%'##$ This is another case of two different Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) in the names of two different persons covering one and the same parcel of land located in a prime commercial area in Quezon City. It was originally registered as Lot 4 ! " ! with an area of #$%&' s(. m. under )ct 4*+ on ,cto-er %$'*"& in the .egistration !oo/ of the .egister of 0eeds of .izal$ 1ol. T 2' 3age "'#$ pursuant to 0ecree 4o. *'&$ 5.L...,. .ecord 4o. '*& in the name 6rnesto 6vangelio. Later$ it was recorded in the names of the 7eirs of 8imeon 6vangelio (the 7eirs) under TCT 4o. T "'*+%+ issued on 9une ""$ '*&+. ,n 0ecem-er 4$ '*&#$ the 7eirs sold the property to the spouses 4aty and 4ilo in whose names another title (TCT 4o. "2''&2+) was issued. 7owever$ the 7eirs were a-le to reclaim the property upon the failure of the spouses to pay their mortgage o-ligation on the property. 8o another title (TCT 4o."&*+24) was issued in the name of the 7eirs. In '*#"$ an un segregated portion of the lot measuring *:+ s(. m.$ designated as lot 4 ! " ! ' was e;propriated -y the 5overnment for road widening$ with the 7eirs retaining the remaining portion of &$4+2 s(.m. designated as Lot 4 ! " ! ". ,n <ay "%$ '*#%$ the 7eirs sold the said Lot 4 ! " ! " to 4!8 in whose favor TCT 4o. %::#+' was issued. 4!8 then immediately protected its interest on the property -y fencing it off and designating security guards around its perimeter. It also paid the real property ta;es on the property evidenced -y ta; declarations issued in its name. Later on$ the 3resident of 4!8 received an offer for sale of a property covered -y TCT 4o. .T ':%:"" registered in the name of 6milia <analo. It was then that 4!8 discovered that its TCT 4o. %::#+' and 6milia=s TCT 4o. .T ':%:"" referred to the same property$ Lot 4 ! " ! ". It turned out that TCT 4o. .T ':%:"" in the name of 6milia <analo was a reconstituted title issued on 4ovem-er *$ '**4 in su-stitution of TCT 4o. '&*#24 registered and issued on )ugust "2$ '*&" -ut which was supposedly -urned in the fire that razed the .egister of 0eeds of Quezon City on 9une ''$ '*##. 6milia presented a ta; declaration with the same num-er as the ta; declaration of 4!8 and a certification from the .evenue Collection ,ffice of QC showing that she had declared the lot in her name for ta;ation purposes$ although upon closer scrutiny what was actually recorded in the ta; declaration was Lot 4 ! " ! ' which was the lot e;propriated -y the government. 8o$ on >e-ruary "#$ '**+$ 4!8 filed an action for (uieting of title -efore the .TC alleging that it was the true and lawful owner of Lot 4 ! " ! " as evidenced -y the original of TCT 4o. %::#+' on file with the .egister of 0eeds of QC which was not -urned in the fire of 9une$ '*##. 4!8 as/ed the .TC to cancel 6milia=s Title. 6milia however stu--ornly insisted that she was the a-solute owner in fee simple$ relying on the legality and regularity of the reconstitution of her title to the Lot. <eanwhile$ on 9uly '&$ '**&$ the L.) .econstitution ,fficer issued a 8upplemental ,rder setting aside the previous order of reconstitution and in particular directed the e;clusion of 6milia=s Title (TCT 4o. '&*#24) from the reconstitution order. 4evertheless$ the .TC$ after initially ruling in favor of 4!8 reversed its decision and ruled in favor of 6milia. )ccording to the .TC$ 6milia=s title was issued and registered on )ugust "2$ '*&" which should have served as constructive notice to 4!8 whose title (TCT 4o.%::#+') was issued only on 9une +$ '*#%. ?as the .TC correct@ 4o. ?hile a reconstituted title has a prima facie appearance of legality$ the reconstitution of said title is su-Aect to the proviso that no other certificate of title covering the same parcel of land e;ists in the records of the registry. ) certificate of title considered lost or destroyed$ if found or recovered$ prevails over the reconstituted title. In this case$ the original of TCT 4o. %::#+' in 4!8= name is on file with the .egister of 0eeds and is one of the titles which were not -urned in the fire of 9une '*##. The owner=s duplicate copy of the title is intact and in 4!8= possession. 4!8 was a-le to show how it ac(uired its title from the title of its vendor$ the heirs of 8imeon 6vangelio via a deed of sale. 3rior thereto the heirs had even sold the property to the spouses 4ilo and 4aty in whose names another title (TCT "2''&2) was issued although the 7eirs were a-le to reclaim title of the property (TCT "&*+24) upon failure of the spouses to pay their mortgage o-ligation thereon. The antecedents leading to 4!8= ac(uisition of the property are well documented and even annotated in its TCT 4o. %::#+'. >rom the time 4!8 o-tained title$ it e;ercised its o-ligation as owner -y paying the realty ta;es evidenced -y ta; declarations issued in its name and -y fencing off the property. In contrast$ other than the reconstituted title and her allegation that she is the owner in fee simple$ 6milia failed to present any evidence how she was a-le to ac(uire the property. 8he cannot rely on the ta; declaration since it has the same num-er as the ta; declaration of 4!8 and which$ upon closer scrutiny pertains to Lot " ! " ! '$ the land e;propriated -y the government. >urthermore$ 6milia=s reconstituted title

was later withdrawn -y the L.) which issued it upon further investigation and verification pursuant to the supplemental ,rder dated 9uly '&$ '**&. 8o the 4!8 title should -e upheld while 6milia <analo=s reconstituted title should -e cancelled (Encinas and Balboa vs. National Book Store, Inc. G.R. 162704, Nove ber 1!, 2004".