Reconstitution of Lost Title: Court Clarifies Burden of Proof Under RA 26

The Supreme Court recently ruled on the requirements for judicial reconstitution of a lost or destroyed transfer certificate of title (TCT), providing important guidance on how courts should evaluate evidence in these cases. The case of Faustino Co Shu Kiam v. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 279277, June 29, 2026) clarifies the burden of proof on petitioners and the proper application of Republic Act No. 26, which governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title.

The Case Background

Faustino Co Shu Kiam filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan to reconstitute TCT No. T-23536, which was allegedly registered in the names of spouses Juan and Socorro Aglipay. The property, a 14,233-square-meter parcel in Pandi, Bulacan, was supposedly purchased by the spouses in 1958 from a certain Tomas Delos Santos.

The original copy of the title on file with the Register of Deeds was lost when fire gutted the registry building in March 1987. The owner's duplicate copy was allegedly lost during Typhoon Ondoy in 2010 while in the custody of a relative. Faustino claimed he purchased the property from Socorro in 2016 through a Deed of Absolute Sale.

The RTC granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Faustino failed to prove that the documents listed in the earlier paragraphs of Section 3 of RA 26 were lost or missing before resorting to "other documents" under Section 3(f).

The Legal Framework

Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26 lists the acceptable sources for reconstitution in a specific order: (a) the owner's duplicate certificate of title; (b) co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate; (c) certified copy of the title previously issued by the register of deeds; (d) deed of transfer or other document on file in the registry showing the property's description and that the original was registered; (e) documents showing the property was mortgaged, leased, or encumbered; and (f) any other document the court deems sufficient.

The Court in Republic v. Bercede (932 Phil. 851, 2023) held that documents under Section 3(f) can only be used as a last resort. A petitioner must first show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the sources listed earlier in the order are unavailable or lost.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC decision granting the reconstitution. The Court found that the factual circumstances in Bercede differed from the present case.

In Bercede, the petitioners presented only a photocopy of the original certificate of title and a certification from the Register of Deeds. The Court found this insufficient because they failed to show that the owner's duplicate copy was also missing.

In contrast, Faustino presented an Affidavit of Loss executed by the relative who held the owner's duplicate copy, establishing that it was lost during Typhoon Ondoy. The Court noted that notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity, and no evidence was presented to rebut this presumption.

Ruling on Certifications from the Register of Deeds

The Court also addressed the Court of Appeals' concern about the certification from the Register of Deeds. The appellate court noted that the certification did not categorically state whether TCT No. T-23536 actually existed before the fire.

The Supreme Court ruled that such strict standards cannot reasonably be expected when the entire registry building and all its records were destroyed by fire. The records officer would be incapable of categorically stating whether a specific title existed before the conflagration, and presenting him as a witness would be futile.

Practical Takeaways

• Order of sources matters: Petitioners must exhaust the sources listed in Section 3(a) to (e) of RA 26 before resorting to "other documents" under Section 3(f), and must prove unavailability by clear and convincing evidence.

• Notarized documents carry weight: An Affidavit of Loss that is notarized enjoys the presumption of regularity and can establish the loss of an owner's duplicate certificate, unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

• Certifications must be read reasonably: When a fire destroys an entire registry, courts should not demand certifications that categorically confirm the existence of a specific title before the fire, as this may be impossible to provide.

• Supporting documents matter: A deed of transfer showing registration and cancellation of a prior title, together with a plan and technical description approved by the Land Registration Authority, can serve as sufficient basis for reconstitution.

• Courts should evaluate evidence as a whole: The totality of evidence—including the deed of sale, affidavits, tax records, and LRA verification—should be considered together rather than scrutinizing each document in isolation.

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