G.R. NO. 142810 - DOLORES A. CABELLO AND TEOFILO ABELLANOSA, VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

accordingly ordered the reconstitution of the original certificate of title. The propriety of the reconstitution ordered by the trial court in light of the certification issued by the Registry of Deeds "[T]hat records in this office do not show that a certificate of title has been issued to Lot No./s 4504...", is now at issue. The OSG insists that the petition for reconstitution should have been considered by the trial court as filed under Sec. 2(f) of RA 26, in accordance with which the plan and technical description of the property should have also been presented, because the question of whether an original certificate of title was issued pursuant to the decree of registration was put in doubt by the certification issued by the Registry of Deeds. We cannot give primacy to the findings of the trial court over the categorical certification by the Registry of Deeds that its records do not show that a certificate or title was issued over the property. Indeed, this certification presents a powerfully cogent reason for the denial of the petition for reconstitution anchored as it was on Sec. 2(d) above-quoted. The trial court should have been more circumspect in ordering reconstitution based on this section considering that the only evidence upon which it based its finding that an original certificate of title had been issued pursuant to the decree of registration adduced by petitioners was the testimony of two witnesses, one of whom is petitioner herein. [14] Notably, only Felipe Abangan was able to positively testify that he had seen the original certificate of title of the property. Petition er Dolores Cabello merely testified to the effect that Basilio Abellanosa kept the original certificate of title but that she did not know where it was. [15] In sum, the evidence presented by petitioners does not establish that an original certificate of title over the property was earlier issued. Hence, the reconstitution ordered by the trial court was improper. The petition should have been filed under Sec. 2(f) of RA 26, in which case, it should have been accompanied by a duly approved plan and technical description of the property in accordance with Sec. 12 of the law. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.