G.R. NO. 166139 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. PEDRO T. CASIMIRO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for reconstitution of TCT No. 305917 is DENIED for failure to comply with Section 3 of Republic Act No.26. This dismissal, however, shall not preclude the right of the petitioner to file an application for confirmation of his or their title under the provisions of Land Registration Act if he is entitled thereto. As provided by RA No. 26; "each dismissal shall not preclude the right of the party or parties entitled thereto to file an application for confirmation of his or their title under the provision of the Land Registration Act." Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforequoted Decision of the RTC, and after hearing, the same court rendered a Decision, [5] dated 22 October 2001, granting the motion, and ruling thus: WHEREFORE , premises considered, petition is hereby GRANTED . The Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby DIRECTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT AND THEN VERIFY the authenticity of the attached "Owner's Duplicate Certificate" - which is the duplicate original - and if found authentic and issued regularly in due course, to RECONSTITUTE and issue a corresponding new "owner's duplicate copy" of the reconstituted title of TCT No. 305917 - provided however that there exists no other title or any "Owner's Duplicate Certificate" of the title in the Register of Deeds, encompassing the area covered by the above TCT No.305917, otherwise this decision shall ipso facto be without force and effect. Subsequently, an Entry of Judgment was issued on 12 November 2001 in LRC Case No. Q-11101 (99). [6] However, on 20 November 2001, a Notice of Nullity of Entry of Judgment [7] was issued by the Clerk of Court of the RTC, considering that the herein petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed a Notice of Appeal via registered mail on 9 November 2001, which was received by the said court on 20 November 2001. During the hearing on the Notice of Appeal, Solicitor Brigido Luna manifested that instead of the Notice of Appeal, the same should be considered as an " Ad-Cautelum Notice of Appeal converted into a Motion for Reconsideration." The RTC, issued an Order, [8] dated 10 December 2001, granting the said " Ad-Cautelum Notice of Appeal converted into a Motion for Reconsideration" and ordered a re-hearing of the case for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of the Owner's Duplicate of TCT No. 305917. In a Manifestation, [9] dated 19 December 2001, petitioner asserted, among other things, that it had received only on 11 December 2001 a copy of the Entry of Judgment declaring the Decision of the RTC, dated 22 October 2001, final and executory, and that said Entry of Judgment was premature given that it intended to appeal the assailed Decision. Petitioner further explained that it was the suggestion of the RTC to treat its Notice of Appeal as a Motion for Reconsideration; that in deference to such suggestion, it agreed to a re-hearing only for the purpose of verifying th