Reconstitution of Lost Titles: What the Supreme Court Said in Faustino Co Shu Kiam

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court clarified the rules on judicial reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title, emphasizing the importance of following the hierarchy of sources under Republic Act No. 26. The case of Faustino Co Shu Kiam v. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 279277, June 29, 2026) involved a petition to reconstitute Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-23536 covering a parcel of land in Pandi, Bulacan.

The case is significant for property owners and buyers because it clarifies what evidence is needed to reconstitute a lost title and when a court may rely on "other documents" as a basis for reconstitution.

The Facts of the Case

Faustino Co Shu Kiam purchased a 14,233-square-meter property in Pandi, Bulacan from Socorro Resurrection Aglipay in 2016. The property was originally registered under TCT No. T-23536 in the names of spouses Juan Aglipay and Socorro Resurrection Aglipay, who allegedly bought it in 1958 from a certain Tomas Delos Santos.

The original copy of TCT No. T-23536 on file with the Register of Deeds (ROD) of Bulacan was destroyed when a fire gutted the ROD building on March 7, 1987. Meanwhile, the owner's duplicate copy, entrusted to Socorro's nephew Lauro Resurrection-Pasco for safekeeping, was lost when Typhoon Ondoy submerged Lauro's house in 2010.

Faustino filed a petition for reconstitution of the title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The RTC granted the petition, but 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 sole issue was whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for reconstitution of TCT No. T-23536.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the RTC decision. The Court held that Faustino sufficiently proved that the owner's duplicate copy of the title had been lost or destroyed, and that the documents he presented adequately supported the reconstitution.

The Hierarchy of Sources Under Section 3

Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26 lists the acceptable sources for reconstitution of transfer certificates of title, in the following order: (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 of the certificate of title previously issued by the ROD; (d) the deed of transfer or other document on file in the registry of deeds containing the description of the property; (e) a document on file in the registry of deeds by which the property is mortgaged, leased, or encumbered; and (f) any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstitution.

In Republic v. Spouses Bercede (932 Phil. 851 [2023]), the Court held that Section 3(f) refers only to documents similar to those in paragraphs (a) to (e), under the principle of ejusdem generis. A party seeking reconstitution must show that the documents listed earlier in the hierarchy had been sought and not found, and this unavailability must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Applying the Rules to the Facts

The Court found that Faustino sufficiently proved the loss of the owner's duplicate copy through the Affidavit of Loss executed by Lauro. Being a notarized document, it carries the presumption of regularity, and no evidence was presented to refute it.

As for the original copy on file with the ROD, the Court held that the Certification dated January 17, 2019, stating that all titles and documents in the ROD office were destroyed by the March 7, 1987 fire, was sufficient. The Court reasoned that the strict standards imposed on ROD certifications cannot reasonably be met when the entire records or the building where they were stored were destroyed by fire.

The Court also gave weight to the Kasulatan ng Tuluyang Bilihan ng Isang Lagay ng Lupa (Deed of Absolute Sale) executed in 1958, which contained a description of the property and a notation on its dorsal portion showing that it was registered, that TCT No. 19405 was cancelled, and that TCT No. T-23536 was issued. This satisfied the requirement under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 26.

Finally, the Court noted that the Land Registration Authority (LRA) itself submitted a Report verifying that the plan and technical description of the property were correct and pertained to the same lot described in the petition.

Practical Takeaways

• Keep your owner's duplicate certificate of title safe. It is the primary source for reconstitution under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 26, and losing it creates significant hurdles.
• If a title is lost or destroyed, act promptly. Gather all available documents—deeds of sale, tax declarations, certifications from the ROD, and approved plans—to support a reconstitution petition.
• Notarized documents carry a presumption of regularity. An Affidavit of Loss, if notarized and unrebutted, can be strong evidence of the loss of a title.
• When records are destroyed by fire or calamity, courts may be more flexible. The Supreme Court recognized that ROD certifications cannot always meet strict standards when the entire records were lost.
• The hierarchy of sources under Section 3 must be followed. A party must show that documents listed earlier in the order are unavailable before resorting to "other documents" under Section 3(f).

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