GR 193874; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 193874 ; July 24, 2013
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Ricordito N. De Asis, Jr., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Ricordito N. De Asis, Jr. filed a petition for reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 8240 covering a parcel of land in Quezon City. He based his petition on the owner’s duplicate copy of the title, alleging the original was destroyed in a 1988 fire at the Quezon City Hall. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the publication of the notice of hearing in the Official Gazette for two consecutive weeks, which was done in the December 23 and December 30, 2002 issues. The hearing was set for January 30, 2003. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the petition, arguing that the publication was defective because a certification from the National Printing Office stated the December 30, 2002 issue was officially released only on January 3, 2003, which was less than the 30-day notice period required by law prior to the hearing. The Republic also cited a report from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) indicating the technical description of the subject property overlapped with other registered lots.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the publication of the notice of hearing in the Official Gazette complied with the mandatory 30-day notice requirement under Republic Act No. 26 , and (2) whether the LRA report of overlapping technical descriptions warranted the denial of the petition for reconstitution.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the Republic’s petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions granting the reconstitution. On the publication issue, the Court held that the 30-day period should be reckoned from the date of the issue of the Official Gazette as printed on its cover, not from the date of its actual release by the National Printing Office. Following its precedent in Imperial v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that it is common for published issues to be released before the cover date. Since the notice was published in the December 23 and 30, 2002 issues, and the hearing was on January 30, 2003, the 30-day requirement was satisfied. Strict compliance with publication is jurisdictional, and this standard was met.
Regarding the LRA report, the Court ruled that while such reports are advisory, they are not conclusive. The mere mention of an overlap, without specific details identifying the conflicting titles or proving the alleged overlap, is insufficient to defeat a reconstitution petition. The authenticity of the owner’s duplicate title, the source for reconstitution, was never disputed. The burden to substantiate a claim of overlap rests on the oppositor, and the Republic failed to present clear evidence that the title was fake or spurious. Therefore, the RTC correctly granted the reconstitution based on the available duplicate certificate of title.