Reconstitution of Lost Title: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Rules in Faustino Co Shu Kiam v. Republic

The Supreme Court recently clarified the rules on judicial reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title in Faustino Co Shu Kiam v. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 279277, June 29, 2026). The ruling guides property owners and courts on what evidence suffices when original title records are destroyed—such as by fire or calamity—and explains when "other documents" may be used as basis for reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26.

The Case Before the Court

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

The original copy of the title was destroyed 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, who kept the title for safekeeping.

Shu Kiam filed a petition for reconstitution of the lost title with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The RTC granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, applying the strict guidelines from Republic v. Spouses Bercede (932 Phil. 851 [2023]). The CA found the documents presented insufficient and dismissed the petition.

The Issue

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for reconstitution of TCT No. T-23536.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court granted Shu Kiam's petition and reinstated the RTC decision. The Court held that the CA applied Bercede too rigidly, given that the factual circumstances differed.

The Hierarchy of Sources Under RA 26

Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26 lists the acceptable sources for reconstituting transfer certificates of title, in order of preference:

• (a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title
• (b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate
• (c) A certified copy previously issued by the ROD or legal custodian
• (d) The deed of transfer or other document on file in the registry containing the property description, showing the original had been registered
• (e) A document on file in the registry by which the property was mortgaged, leased, or encumbered
• (f) Any other document the court deems sufficient and proper

Under Bercede, documents listed earlier must be exhausted or proven lost or missing before resorting to later sources. The unavailability of prior documents must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.

Why the CA Erred

The Court found that Shu Kiam sufficiently proved the owner's duplicate copy was lost. The Affidavit of Loss executed by Socorro's nephew was notarized and carried the presumption of regularity—no evidence was presented to rebut it.

The Court also rejected the CA's skepticism about the ROD certification. The certification stated all titles and documents in the ROD office were destroyed in the March 7, 1987 fire. The Court reasoned that when an entire records building burns down, it is unreasonable to expect the ROD to categorically confirm whether a specific title existed before the fire—all records, including logbooks, may have been destroyed.

Similarly, the Court dismissed the significance of a 2018 certification stating the title "cannot be found nor located, therefore, does not exist." This could simply reflect that when jurisdiction over Pandi properties transferred to the ROD of Meycauayan in 1995, only post-fire records were transferred.

The Kasulatan as Sufficient Basis

The Court found the Kasulatan ng Tuluyang Bilihan ng Isang Lagay ng Lupa (Deed of Absolute Sale) executed in 1958 sufficient under Section 3(d) of RA 26. The document contained:

• A description of the property with its metes and bounds
• The previous owner's name ("Tomas Delos Santos")
• The sale to the spouses Aglipay
• A dorsal portion certifying registration, cancellation of TCT No. 19405, and issuance of TCT No. T-23536

The Court also noted that the Land Registration Authority (LRA) itself submitted a report confirming the sketch plan and technical description pertained to the same property.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarized affidavits carry weight. A notarized Affidavit of Loss enjoys the presumption of regularity and can establish the loss of an owner's duplicate title unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
• Courts must be realistic about destroyed records. When a fire destroys an entire ROD building, courts cannot demand certifications that categorically confirm a title's existence before the fire—such records may no longer exist.
• "Other documents" are acceptable when prior sources are unavailable. Section 3(f) of RA 26 allows reconstitution based on other documents, but only after showing the earlier-listed sources are lost or unavailable.
• The deed of transfer can be a strong basis. Under Section 3(d), a registered deed showing the property description and the issuance of the lost title can support reconstitution.
• LRA verification strengthens a petition. A report from the LRA confirming the technical description and sketch plan can cure minor discrepancies in names or descriptions.

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