Reconstitution of Lost Title: Supreme Court Clarifies Rules on Lost Owner's Duplicate

The Supreme Court recently clarified the rules on judicial reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title, emphasizing that the strict hierarchy of sources under Republic Act No. 26 must be observed, but that the rules must be applied with reason, especially when records themselves were destroyed by fire. The case of Faustino Co Shu Kiam v. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 279277, June 29, 2026) provides valuable guidance for property owners and practitioners dealing with lost titles.

The Facts of the Case

Faustino Co Shu Kiam purchased a 14,233-square-meter parcel of land in Pandi, Bulacan from Socorro Resurrection Aglipay, who had inherited it from her late husband Juan Aglipay. The property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-23536, issued in 1958.

The original copy of the title was lost when fire gutted the Register of Deeds (ROD) building in Bulacan on March 7, 1987. The owner's duplicate copy was lost when typhoon "Ondoy" submerged the house of Socorro's nephew, Lauro Resurrection-Pasco, who had kept the title for safekeeping.

Faustino filed a petition for reconstitution of the title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which granted the petition. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, ruling that Faustino failed to prove that the documents listed in Section 3(a) to (e) of Republic Act No. 26 were lost or missing before resorting to other documents under Section 3(f).

The Issue

The central question was whether the CA erred in dismissing Faustino's petition for reconstitution of TCT No. T-23536.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the RTC decision granting the reconstitution. The Court held that Faustino had sufficiently proven that the owner's duplicate copy was lost or destroyed, satisfying the requirements of Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 26.

The Hierarchy of Sources Under Section 3

Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26 lists the acceptable bases for reconstitution of transfer certificates of title, in the following order:

1. The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;
2. The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate;
3. A certified copy previously issued by the register of deeds;
4. The deed of transfer or other document on file in the registry of deeds showing that the original had been registered;
5. A document by which the property was mortgaged, leased, or encumbered; and
6. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis.

The Court in Republic v. Bercede (932 Phil. 851 [2023]) held that documents under Section 3(f) can only be resorted to in the absence of those preceding in order, and that the unavailability of prior sources must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Applying the Rules Reasonably

The Court distinguished the present case from Bercede. In Bercede, the petitioner presented only a photocopy of the title and a certification that the copy was missing, without showing that the owner's duplicate was likewise unavailable.

In contrast, Faustino presented an Affidavit of Loss executed by Lauro, which established that the owner's duplicate was lost during typhoon "Ondoy." The Court noted that a notarized document carries the presumption of regularity, and no evidence was presented to refute it.

Certifications from the Register of Deeds

The CA faulted Faustino for failing to present a certification that categorically stated whether TCT No. T-23536 existed and was in force at the time of the fire. The Court, however, found this standard unreasonable under the circumstances.

The Court explained that when the entire records of the ROD were destroyed by fire, it is impossible for the ROD to categorically state whether a particular title existed. The records officer would be incapable of providing such information, and presenting him as a witness would be futile.

The Court also addressed the CA's reliance on a certification stating that TCT No. T-23536 "does not exist." The Court explained that when jurisdiction over properties in Pandi was transferred to the ROD of Meycauayan in 1995, only records that existed after the 1987 fire were transferred. This could explain why the ROD could not locate any record of the title.

The Deed of Transfer as Sufficient Basis

The Court found that the Kasulatan ng Tuluyang Bilihan ng Isang Lagay ng Lupa (Deed of Absolute Sale) executed in 1958 satisfied Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 26. The deed contained:

• A description of the property, its location, and metes and bounds;
• A statement that the property was previously owned by "Tomas Delos Santos" and covered by TCT No. 19405;
• A statement that the property was sold to the spouses Aglipay;
• The notarization by a lawyer; and
• A dorsal portion certifying that TCT No. 19405 was cancelled and TCT No. T-23536 was issued.

The Court also noted that the technical description and sketch plan were verified by the Land Registration Authority (LRA), which submitted a report confirming that the plan pertained to the same property described in the petition.

Practical Takeaways

• The hierarchy in Section 3 of RA 26 matters. Courts must be satisfied that sources higher in the list are unavailable before allowing reconstitution based on "other documents" under Section 3(f). Petitioners should present evidence of the loss or destruction of the owner's duplicate and other preferred sources.

• Notarized affidavits of loss carry weight. A notarized Affidavit of Loss enjoys the presumption of regularity and can establish the loss of an owner's duplicate copy, unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

• Certifications from the ROD must be read reasonably. When records were destroyed by fire, courts cannot demand certifications that categorically state whether a title existed. The destruction of all records makes such statements impossible.

• Deeds of transfer can serve as a valid basis. A deed of transfer that contains a description of the property and shows that the original was registered can support reconstitution under Section 3(d), especially when accompanied by LRA-approved plans and technical descriptions.

• Verification by the LRA strengthens the petition. A report from the LRA confirming that the plan and technical description pertain to the property in question significantly bolsters a petition for reconstitution.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.