FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199777. June 17, 2015.]

HEIRS OF DATU DALANDAG KULI, represented by DATU CULOT

DALANDAG , petitioners, vs. DANIEL R. PIA, FILOMENA FOLLOSCO,
and JOSE FOLLOSCO, SR. , respondents.

DECISION

SERENO, C.J : p

The present case stems from a Petition for Review 1 led by the heirs of Datu
Dalandag Kuli (petitioners), praying for the reversal of the Decision 2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA), Cagayan de Oro City dated 28 January 2011 and subsequent Resolution 3
dated 6 December 2011. The CA a rmed the Judgment 4 rendered by the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Midsayap Cotabato, on 16 January 2004, dismissing the
case for the quieting of title led by petitioners. The RTC found that petitioners failed to
overcome the presumption of regularity in the issuance of Transfer Certi cate of Title
(TCT) No. 1608 in the name of Daniel R. Pia (respondent Pia).
The parcel of land subject of this case (Lot 2327) was awarded to Datu Kuli
through cadastral proceedings. 5 Thereafter, the Register of Deeds of Cotabato City
registered the property in his name on 12 November 1935 as evidenced by Original
Certi cate of Title (OCT) No. 1654. When Datu Kuli died on 8 July 1985, the possession
of Lot 2327 was passed on to his heirs, the present petitioners, who continue to hold
possession thereof.
When petitioners sought to have Datu Kuli's title reconstituted, they were
informed by the Register of Deeds that a different title had already been issued in the
name of Jose Follosco, Sr. (respondent Jose). 6
It appears from the records that on 21 December 1940, TCT 1608 covering Lot
2327 was issued in respondent Pia's name. Although the Register of Deeds could no
longer produce a copy of the alleged Deed of Sale, 7 it issued a Certi cation that a Deed
of Sale executed by Datu Kuli in respondent Pia's favor had been presented to it. 8 On
the strength of this deed, Datu Kuli's OCT 1654 was cancelled, and TCT 1608 issued.
On 14 July 1948, the Register of Deeds administratively reconstituted TCT 1608
using a duplicate of respondent Pia's title as the source. 9 On even date, after another
Deed of Conveyance was supposedly executed by respondent Pia in favor of Filomena
Follosco (respondent Filomena), 10 the former's reconstituted title was cancelled and a
new title (TCT T-374) issued in the name of respondent Filomena. Again, on 22
September 1954, the latter title was cancelled and TCT T-2911 issued in the name of
respondent Jose. 11
Claiming that they had always been in possession of the property and that Datu
Kuli never sold the property to any of the respondents, petitioners led a Complaint for
Quieting of Title with the RTC, praying for the restoration of OCT No. 1654 and the
annulment of all the subsequently issued titles covering Lot 2327 under the names of
respondents. 12 DACcIH

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 Upon the ling of the Complaint, efforts were made to serve summons on
respondents. Because none of these could be served on any of them, on 12 May 1999
petitioners moved for the service of summons by publication. In an Order dated 24 May
1999, the RTC granted petitioners' motion. The branch clerk of court then issued
summons by publication on 30 June 1999. 13
On 12 July 2000, the RTC issued its Order granting petitioners' motion to declare
respondents in default. This Order was likewise published. 14
After evaluating the evidence presented by petitioners, the RTC, in its Judgment
dated 16 January 2004, ruled in respondents' favor. According to the trial court, even
though Atty. Maria Theresa B. Pescadera (Atty. Pescadera), an o cer of the Register of
Deeds of Cotabato City, was not able to produce the Deed of Conveyance stating that
Datu Kuli had sold Lot 2327 to respondent Pia, 15 it was convinced that "there was
indeed a conveyance from Datu Dalandag Kuli to Daniel R. Pia over Lot No. 2327." 16
The dispositive portion of the RTC Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing considerations, the court
nds and so holds that the plaintiffs were not able to prove their a rmative
allegations and the existence of a valid cause of action. The court, therefore,
renders Judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs:
(1) Holding as valid the issuance of Transfer Certi cate of Title No. RT-
168 (1608) in the name of Daniel R. Pia.
(2) Holding as valid the subsequent transfer and issuance of TCT No. T-
374 and TCT No. T-2911 in the names of Filomena Follosco and Jose Follosco,
Sr. respectively.
(3) Dismissing this case for lack of a valid cause of action.
IT IS SO DECIDED. 17
Petitioners appealed the foregoing to the CA, which dismissed their Petition on
28 January 2011.
Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. 18
In a Resolution 19 dated 21 March 2012, the Court ordered respondents to
Comment on the Petition, but copies of the Resolution were returned unserved. 20 It
made several attempts to resend the copies, but all were returned to this Court with the
following notations: "RTS-insu cient address" and "RTS-party deceased." 21 The Court
hereby resolves to consider the Resolution as served.
Petitioners ask that this Court declare that the CA committed error in upholding
the validity of TCT 1608.
The Petition is denied. The Court a rms the appreciation of the evidence by the
CA as well as by the RTC.
In the Complaint for Quieting of Title led with the RTC, petitioners prayed for the
restoration of OCT No. 1654 and the annulment of all the subsequently issued titles
covering Lot 2327 under the names of respondents. 22
The following requisites must concur, so that an action for quieting of title may
prosper: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in
the real property, subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or
proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact
invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal e cacy. 23
HSCATc

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 Assuming arguendo that the continued possession of the property by petitioners
establishes their legal or equitable interest thereon and thus ful lls the rst requisite,
the RTC still correctly declared that they failed to establish that they had a valid cause
of action, 24 because they did not succeed in proving that respondent Pia had failed to
present a copy of the Deed of Sale with the Register of Deeds or that even if they did, it
is invalid.
Petitioners insist that the failure of the Register of Deeds to produce a copy of
the Deed of Conveyance used as basis to cancel Datu Kuli's OCT proves that the
property was never sold to respondent Pia.
The argument of petitioners holds no water. While the law requires the Register
of Deeds to obtain a copy of the Deed of Conveyance before cancelling the seller's title,
its subsequent failure to produce the copy, after a new title had already been issued is
not a sufficient evidence to hold that the claimed sale never actually happened.
We agree with the RTC and rule that even though copies of the Deed of Sale and
the OCT of Datu Kuli can no longer be produced now, the evidence presented
su ciently shows that the deed conveying the property to respondent Pia was
presented to the Register of Deeds on 21 December 1940, and that this deed was the
basis for the cancellation of Datu Kuli's original title.
The failure on the part of the Register of Deeds to present a copy of the Deed of
Sale when required by the trial court was duly explained by them. It appears that the
records containing the Deed of Sale are no longer readable, because they are "very
much mutilated." 25 Nevertheless, the Register of Deeds was able to certify that the
following entry or notation was found in the first volume of its Primary Entry Book: 26
Entry No. 7512

Date of Registration: Dec. 21, 1940 at 7:58am

Nature of Document: Deed of Sale
Date of Document: (Dilapidated Portion)
Executed by: Datu Dalandag Kuli
In favor of: Daniel R. Pia
Amount: P390.00

Although the Deed of Sale itself can no longer be located, we agree with the
RTC's conclusion that the above notation proves that "there was at one time in the past
such document recorded in the Register of Deeds but that with the passage of time, the
same became tattered, unreadable, badly dilapidated, and mutilated and could not be
found or recognized to boot." 27
All in all, it becomes clear that TCT 1608 was issued on 21 December 1940,
because respondent Pia was able to present the requisite Deed of Sale as proven by
the certification issued by the Register of Deeds.
Section 57 of the Property Registration Decree provides the procedure for the
registration of conveyances, viz.:
SECTION 57. Procedure in Registration of Conveyances. — An owner desiring to
convey his registered land in fee simple shall execute and register a deed of
conveyance in a form su cient in law. The Register of Deeds shall thereafter
make out in the registration book a new certi cate of title to the grantee and
shall prepare and deliver to him an owner's duplicate certi cate. The Register of
Deeds shall note upon the original and duplicate certi cate the date of transfer,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 the volume and page of the registration book in which the new certi cate is
registered and a reference by number to the last preceding certi cate. The
original and the owner's duplicate of the grantor's certi cate shall be stamped
"cancelled". The deed of conveyance shall be led and indorsed with the
number and the place of registration of the certi cate of title of the land
conveyed. IDTSEH

The evidence and the records prove that the proper procedure for the issuance
of TCT 1608 was followed. The title was validly issued.
Deserving scant consideration is petitioners' claim that the failure of the Register
of Deeds to produce a copy of the Deed of Conveyance proves that Datu Kuli never sold
Lot 2327 to anyone. Other than their self-serving claim that the sale never happened,
petitioners failed to present any other evidence to prove that Lot 2327 had never been
purchased by respondent Pia. It requires more than petitioners' bare allegation to
defeat TCT 1608, which on its face enjoys the legal presumption of regularity of
issuance. 28
With respect to the allegation of petitioner that the administrative reconstitution
of TCT 1608 is invalid, we agree with the CA and rule that the Register of Deeds
administratively reconstituted TCT 1608 in accordance with Republic Act No. 26, 29
which is the law that provides the procedure for the reconstitution of lost titles. Section
3 thereof reads:
SECTION 3. Transfer certi cates of title shall be reconstituted from such
of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, 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 of the
certificate of title;
(c) A certi ed copy of the certi cate of title, previously issued by
the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
(d) The deed of transfer or other document, on le in the registry
of deeds, containing the description of the property, or an
authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had been
registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer
certificate of title was issued;
(e) A document, on le in the registry of deeds, by which the
property, the description of which is given in said document, is
mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of
said document showing that its original had been registered; and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is
su cient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed
certificate of title.
The owner's duplicate of the certi cate of title is the primary source from which
transfer certi cates of title may be reconstituted. Because of the presence of the
owner's duplicate copy of TCT 1608 in the Register of Deeds, it was no longer
necessary for the registrar to compel respondent Pia to produce his copy before
reconstituting his title. 30 Having been issued in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Republic Act No. 26, the Court upholds the validity of the administratively
reconstituted TCT 1608.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Since petitioners failed to prove the invalidity of TCT 1608, it follows that they
cannot now cast doubt on the validity of the titles derived therefrom. SICDAa

WHEREFORE , the instant Petition is DENIED . The Court of Appeals Decision

dated 28 January 2011 and subsequent Resolution dated 6 December 2011 in CA-G.R.
CV No. 00033-MIN, a rming the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No.
99-014 dated 16 January 2004, are AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED .
Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 3-14.

2. Id. at 16-28; CA-G.R. CV No. 00033-MIN, penned by Associate Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba,
and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Nina G. Antonio-
Valenzuela.

3. Id. at 46-47; CA-G.R. CV No. 00033-MIN, penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello,
and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Zenaida T.
Galapate-Laguilles.

4. CA rollo, pp. 81-94; Civil Case No. 99-014, penned by acting Presiding Judge Francisco G.
Rabang, Jr.

5. Id. at 86.
6. Id.

7. Id.
8. Id. at 86-87.
9. Id. at 91.

10. Id. at 87.

11. Id. at 93.

12. Id. at 81.

13. Id.

14. Id.
15. Id. at 89-90.

16. Id. at 88.

17. Id. at 93-94.
18. Rollo, pp. 3-36.

19. Id. at 14.

20. Id. at 48.

21. Id. at 75
22. CA rollo, p. 81.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 23. Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp. v. Bonifacio, G.R. No. 167391, 8 June 2011, 651
SCRA 66, 92; Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia , G.R. No. 173289, 17 February 2010,
613 SCRA 66, 92.
24. Rollo, p. 22.

25. CA rollo, p. 90.

26. Id. at 88.

27. Id. at 90.

28. Alvarico v. Sola, 432 Phil. 792 (2002).
29. An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certi cates of Title
Lost or Destroyed (25 September 1946).
30. Rollo, pp. 26-27.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com