G.R. No. 160560 - DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY ROBERTO M. PAGDANGANAN, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be meritorious, the same is granted. The Register of Deeds, Nasugbu Branch Registry, Nasugbu, Batangas, is directed to reconstitute the lost title, TCT No. T-13352 in the name of the registered owner Ceferino Ascue and to issue an owner's duplicate copy based on the reconstituted one in the name of Ceferino Ascue which contains a memorandum of the fact that the same are entitled to like faith and credit of the lost/destroyed one upon payment of the fees prescribed by law. [8] The OSG received a copy of the said decision on July 20, 1998, and had until August 4, 1998 within which to appeal the decision. However, the OSG filed its Notice of Appeal by registered mail only on August 5, 1998. The OSG alleged in its brief, as appellant, that: I. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION TO ORDER THE RECONSTITUTION OF TCT NO. T-13352. II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE TRIAL COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CASE, IT NONETHELESS ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED THE RECONSTITUTION OF TCT NO. T-13352 ON THE BASIS OF A PHOTOCOPY OF THE OWNER'S DUPLICATE. [9] The DAR failed to file its appellee's brief. The CA rendered judgment on November 29, 2001, reversing the appealed decision and ordering the RTC to dismiss the DAR's petition. The appellate court held that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the petition and that, in any event, the petitioner failed to prove the merits of its petition. The DAR filed a motion for the reconsideration of the decision, claiming, inter alia , that the OSG's appeal from the RTC decision was filed one day late which was subsequently admitted by the OSG in its comment. It claimed, however, that the tardiness was based on the erroneous belief that the month of July has only 30 days instead of 31 days. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration. It ruled that the delay in filing the appeal was not fatal because the RTC's decision was, nonetheless, void for lack of jurisdiction. In any event, the CA held that the motion was barren of merit. Petitioner DAR filed its petition for review with this Court, alleging that the CA erred: WHEN IT FAILED/REFUSED TO RULE ON THE ISSUE OF TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL OF OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT (RESPONDENT HEREIN), A REQUIREMENT THAT IS NOT ONLY MANDATORY BUT JURISDICTIONAL AS WELL. WHEN IT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT BELOW ON THE GROUND THAT IT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE FOR FAILING TO STRICTLY AND LITERALLY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED JURISDICTIONAL FACTS. WHEN IT HELD THAT THE DAR IS NOT A PROPER PARTY IN THE RECONSTITUTION; AND WHEN IT RULED THAT MERE MACHINE COPY OF THE TITLE IS, DESPITE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ADMISSIBILITY UNDER THE RULES, AN INFERIOR EVIDENCE AND NOT ADMISSIBLE. [10] On the first issue, the petitioner avers that the CA erred when it failed to dismiss the respondent's appeal on the ground that it was filed one day late. The RTC decision had, thus, become final and executory and beyond the appellate court's ju