G.R. No. 172848 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOSE VICTORINO K. CASTRO (AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF THE HEIRS OF ROGELIO CASTRO) AND VIOLETA KAMOSENG CASTRO (AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF NILDA CASTRO-STAHL).D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be supported by evidence on record, the Registry of Deeds of Santa Cruz, Laguna is hereby ordered to reconstitute Transfer Certificate of Title No. (N.A.) covering Lot 159, Lot 167, and Lot 172, Block 8, Psu-25131 all situated at Barangay Balayhangin, Calauan, Laguna in the name of the original owner Margarita Roxas y Ayala Vda. De Soriano, using as basis thereof the plan and technical descriptions of said lots, together with pertinent documents attached herewith, subject to the conditions that the said reconstituted title shall be subject to such encumbrances as maybe [ sic ] subsisting and provided further that no certificate of title covering the same parcel of land exist in his office. [13] The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of an ordinary appeal. [14] The Court of Appeals, however, denied the appeal on 22 July 2005, after finding that the evidence presented by the heirs proved that the subject lots had belonged to Roxas and had been sold to Juan Castro and Maria Carudan, the predecessors-in-interest of the heirs. Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that the lots had been properly surveyed, with no discrepancies or inaccuracies, and that the technical description of the lots had been verified by the Land Registration Authority. The appellate court noted that the Republic had never interposed any opposition to the petition nor objection to the evidence presented by the heirs and neither had it presented evidence against the claims of the heirs. [15] The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration [16] of the decision, alleging that: (i) the documents attached to the brief of the heirs as appellees may not be considered in evidence since the heirs had not filed a motion for new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence; and (ii) there was no sufficient evidence that a single TCT had been issued over the subject lots. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, stressing that it had not resolved the issues solely on the basis of the appended documents and that, even without the said documents, the evidence already presented in the court a quo had firmly established the heirs' entitlement to the reconstitution of their title to the subject lots. [17] The documents appended to the appellees' brief were: (1) the General Subdivision Plan of Hacienda Calauan; [18] (2) the Log Book of Hacienda Calauan showing lot numbers and block numbers; [19] and (3) a copy of TCT No. 4246 [20] with the name "Margarita Roxas y Ayala viuda de Soriano" inscribed therein as the registered owner. Before us, the OSG reiterates that the documents attached to the appellees' brief filed in the Court of Appeals in support of their petition for reconstitution of title may not be considered in evidence because they did not file a motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence. Furthermore, even assuming that the documents which the heirs submitted for the fi