Lost Land Title Replacement: RTC, Not DARAB, Has Jurisdiction Over CLOA Titles

---

Losing an owner's duplicate certificate of title can be a stressful experience for any property owner. The process of getting a replacement involves filing a petition in court, but what happens when the property was originally awarded under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)? A recent Supreme Court decision clarifies which forum has jurisdiction over such petitions, providing much-needed guidance for landowners and practitioners alike.

In Patungan v. Register of Deeds of Pangasinan (G.R. No. 235520, June 28, 2021), the Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court (RTC), not the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), has jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title, even when the title originated from a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA).

The Case: A Lost Title and a Disputed Forum

David Patungan filed a petition before the RTC of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, seeking the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 31510, which had been lost. This OCT was issued pursuant to CLOA No. 00150832.

The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that under Section 1(f), Rule II of the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has exclusive and primary jurisdiction over cases involving the reissuance of lost or destroyed owner's duplicate copies of CLOAs and Emancipation Patents (EPs) registered with the Land Registration Authority (LRA).

The petitioner argued that Presidential Decree No. 1529 (the Property Registration Decree), particularly Section 109, governs the replacement of lost certificates. He maintained that once a Torrens title has been issued, the matter falls under RTC jurisdiction, not the DARAB.

The Issue: Overlapping Jurisdictions

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was a pure question of law: whether the RTC has jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of an owner's duplicate copy of an OCT that was issued pursuant to a CLOA.

The Court acknowledged that there appeared to be an overlapping of jurisdiction between the RTC and the DARAB. However, it resolved this conflict by examining the nature and limits of the DARAB's quasi-judicial authority.

The Ruling: RTC Jurisdiction Is Exclusive

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the RTC's orders. The Court held that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of a new duplicate certificate of title, regardless of whether the title originated from a CLOA.

Section 2 of PD 1529 vests the RTC with exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title and all petitions filed after original registration. The Court noted that this provision does not make any qualification as to the source of the title.

Section 109 of PD 1529 governs the procedure for replacing a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate. This provision allows the registered owner to petition the court for the issuance of a new duplicate certificate after notice and due hearing.

Why the DARAB's Jurisdiction Did Not Apply

The Court explained that the DARAB's jurisdiction is limited to agrarian disputes and matters involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657, an "agrarian dispute" refers to controversies relating to tenurial arrangements or compensation for lands acquired under the agrarian reform program.

The petition in this case did not involve any tenurial arrangement, compensation dispute, or terms of transfer. Patungan was simply asking for a replacement of his lost certificate. He was already the registered owner, and the petition did not involve the redistribution of lands or any other CARP implementation matter.

The Court emphasized that once a CLOA is registered and an OCT is issued, the mandate of the DAR is terminated. The OCT must then be treated like any other title to land. The mere fact that the title emanated from a CLOA does not negate the RTC's jurisdiction in favor of the DARAB.

Practical Takeaways

• The RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over petitions to replace lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificates of title, even if the title originated from a CLOA or Emancipation Patent.
• The DARAB's jurisdiction is limited to genuine agrarian disputes involving tenurial arrangements, compensation, or other matters directly related to CARP implementation.
• Once a Torrens title is issued, the property is treated like any other registered land, and the DAR's mandate over it is considered terminated.
• Section 109 of PD 1529 provides the procedure for replacement: the owner must file a petition with the RTC, with notice and due hearing, before a new duplicate certificate can be issued.
• File in the correct court: Petitions for replacement of lost titles should be filed with the RTC that has territorial jurisdiction over the property, not with the DARAB.

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