It was originally registered as Lot 4-B-2-B with an area of 8,371 sq. m. under Act 496 on October 3,1927 in the Registration Book of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, Vol. T-51 Page 218, pursuant to Decree No. 917, G.L.R.O. Record No. 197 in the name Ernesto Evangelio. Later, it was recorded in the names of the Heirs of Simeon Evangelio (the Heirs) under TCT No. T-219636 issued on June 22, 1976. On December 4, 1978, the Heirs sold the property to the spouses Naty and Nilo in whose names another title (TCT No. 2511756) was issued. However, the Heirs were able to reclaim the property upon the failure of the spouses to pay their mortgage obligation on the property. So another title (TCT No.279654) was issued in the name of the Heirs.
In 1982, an un-segregated portion of the lot measuring 906 sq. m., designated as lot 4-B-2-B-1 was expropriated by the Government for road widening, with the Heirs retaining the remaining portion of 7,465 sq.m. designated as Lot 4-B-2-B-2. On May 23, 1983, the Heirs sold the said Lot 4-B-2-B-2 to NBS in whose favor TCT No. 300861 was issued. NBS then immediately protected its interest on the property by fencing it off and designating security guards around its perimeter. It also paid the real property taxes on the property evidenced by tax declarations issued in its name.
Later on, the President of NBS received an offer for sale of a property covered by TCT No. RT-103022 registered in the name of Emilia Manalo. It was then that NBS discovered that its TCT No. 300861 and Emilia’s TCT No. RT-103022 referred to the same property, Lot 4-B-2-B-2. It turned out that TCT No. RT-103022 in the name of Emilia Manalo was a reconstituted title issued on November 9, 1994 in substitution of TCT No. 179854 registered and issued on August 25, 1972 but which was supposedly burned in the fire that razed the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on June 11, 1988. Emilia presented a tax declaration with the same number as the tax declaration of NBS and a certification from the Revenue Collection Office of QC showing that she had declared the lot in her name for taxation purposes, although upon closer scrutiny what was actually recorded in the tax declaration was Lot 4-B-2-B-1 which was the lot expropriated by the government.
So, on February 28, 1996, NBS filed an action for quieting of title before the RTC alleging that it was the true and lawful owner of Lot 4-B-2-B-2 as evidenced by the original of TCT No. 300861 on file with the Register of Deeds of QC which was not burned in the fire of June, 1988. NBS asked the RTC to cancel Emilia’s Title. Emilia however stubbornly insisted that she was the absolute owner in fee simple, relying on the legality and regularity of the reconstitution of her title to the Lot. Meanwhile, on July 17, 1997, the LRA Reconstitution Officer issued a Supplemental Order setting aside the previous order of reconstitution and in particular directed the exclusion of Emilia’s Title (TCT No. 179854) from the reconstitution order. Nevertheless, the RTC, after initially ruling in favor of NBS reversed its decision and ruled in favor of Emilia. According to the RTC, Emilia’s title was issued and registered on August 25, 1972 which should have served as constructive notice to NBS whose title (TCT No.300861) was issued only on June 6, 1983. Was the RTC correct?
No. While a reconstituted title has a prima facie appearance of legality, the reconstitution of said title is subject to the proviso that no other certificate of title covering the same parcel of land exists in the records of the registry. A certificate of title considered lost or destroyed, if found or recovered, prevails over the reconstituted title. In this case, the original of TCT No. 300861 in NBS’ name is on file with the Register of Deeds and is one of the titles which were not burned in the fire of June 1988. The owner’s duplicate copy of the title is intact and in NBS’ possession. NBS was able to show how it acquired its title from the title of its vendor, the heirs of Simeon Evangelio via a deed of sale. Prior thereto the heirs had even sold the property to the spouses Nilo and Naty in whose names another title (TCT 251175) was issued although the Heirs were able to reclaim title of the property (TCT 279654) upon failure of the spouses to pay their mortgage obligation thereon. The antecedents leading to NBS’ acquisition of the property are well documented and even annotated in its TCT No. 300861. From the time NBS obtained title, it exercised its obligation as owner by paying the realty taxes evidenced by tax declarations issued in its name and by fencing off the property.
In contrast, other than the reconstituted title and her allegation that she is the owner in fee simple, Emilia failed to present any evidence how she was able to acquire the property. She cannot rely on the tax declaration since it has the same number as the tax declaration of NBS and which, upon closer scrutiny pertains to Lot 2-B-2-B-1, the land expropriated by the government. Furthermore, Emilia’s reconstituted title was later withdrawn by the LRA which issued it upon further investigation and verification pursuant to the supplemental Order dated July 17, 1997. So the NBS title should be upheld while Emilia Manalo’s reconstituted title should be cancelled (Encinas and Balboa vs. National Book Store, Inc. G.R. 162704, November 19, 2004).