K. Reconstitution of Title (RA 26 and 6732)

K. Reconstitution of Title (P.D. No. 1529, sec. 110)

> SEC. 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title.—Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of Register of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands covered by such titles shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with this Decree. The procedure relative to administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificate prescribed in said Act is hereby abrogated.

R.A. No. 6732 subsequently restored administrative reconstitution, subject to its statutory requirements.

Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial reconstitution shall be given to the Register of Deeds of the place where the land is situated and to the Commissioner of Land Registration. No order or judgment ordering the reconstitution of a certificate of title shall become final until the lapse of thirty days from receipt by the Register of Deeds and by the Commissioner of Land Registration of a notice of such order or judgment without any appeal having been filed by any of such officials.

Reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title

The restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition

Judicial reconstitution under RA 26 requires the loss or destruction of the original certificate of title in the Register of Deeds; possession of an owner’s duplicate by another person does not, by itself, defeat reconstitution of that original. If the relief sought is replacement of a lost owner’s duplicate, Section 109 of PD 1529 applies. Possession of the duplicate by another person is not, by itself, sufficient ground to declare it null and void and issue a new copy. (Alcazar v. Arante, G.R. No. 177042, Dec. 10, 2012)

Kinds of Reconstitution:

• Judicial
• Administrative

Reconstitution v. Re-issuance of Lost Owner’s Duplicate Certificate

Requirements (LDR-FB)

• The certificate of title had been lost or destroyed.
• The Documents presented by the petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
• The petitioner is the Registered owner of the property or had an interest therein.
• The certificate of title was in Force at the time it was lost or destroyed.
• The description, area, and Boundaries of the property are substantially the same and those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title. (Heirs of Toring v. Heirs of Boquilaga, G.R. No. 163610, Sep. 27, 2010, citing R.A. 26, § 2, 3, 12 and 13.)

Note: The claimants must prove that a title had been issued and that said certificate of title was still in force at the time it was lost or destroyed. It is necessary that the RD issue a certification that such was in force at the time of its alleged loss or destruction. The RD cannot issue such certification merely because of the dearth of records in its file. (Republic v. Heirs of Sps. Sanchez and Meneses, G.R. No. 212388, Dec. 10, 2014.)

In reconstitution proceedings, before jurisdiction over the case can be validly acquired, it is a condition sine qua non that the certificate of title has not been issued to another person. If a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of new title. The courts simply have no jurisdiction over petitions by (such) third parties for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly registered owners. The existence of a prior title ipso facto nullifies the reconstitution proceedings. The proper recourse is to assail directly in a proceeding before the regional trial court the validity of the Torrens title already issued to the other person. (Paulino vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 207533, June 4, 2014)

Updated: A certification supporting reconstitution must expressly address the original title’s existence and continued force, briefly explain its loss or destruction, and name the registered owner if known (Faustino Co Shu Kiam v. Republic, G.R. No. 279277, 29 June 2026).

Tax declaration

The tax declaration does not serve as a valid basis for reconstitution. For one, we cannot safely rely on Tax Declaration No. 15003-816 as evidence of the subject property being covered by TCT No. T-22868 in the name of respondent because a tax declaration is executed for taxation purposes only and is actually prepared by the alleged owner himself. (Republic v. Santua, G.R. No. 155703, [September 8, 2008], 586 PHIL 221-300)

Summary of Process:

• File a petition with the RTC (In rem proceeding).
• For petitions governed by R.A. No. 26, Sections 12–13, the court must cause publication and posting of the notice and send it to every named person whose address is known, within the periods prescribed by Section 13. Noncompliance voids the proceeding as such requirements are jurisdictional.
• When the court grants the petition, it shall issue a corresponding order to ROD

Judicial Reconstitution Process

When OCT is to be reconstituted (R.A. 26, § 2.)

• Owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title
• Co-owner’s, mortgagee’s or lessee’s duplicate of said certificate
• Certified copy of such certificate, previously issued by the ROD
• Authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be, which was the basis of the certificate of title
• Deed of mortgage, lease, or encumbrance containing a description of the property covered by the certificate of title and on file with the ROD, or an authenticated copy thereof indicating that its original had been registered
• Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstitution.

When TCT is to be reconstituted (R.A. 26, § 3.)

• Same as sources (1), (2), and (3) for reconstitution of OCT
• Deed of transfer or other document containing a description of the property covered by TCT and on file with the ROD, or an authenticated copy thereof indicating its original had been registered and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed certificate of title was issued
• Same as sources (5) and (6) for reconstitution of OCT

Section 109 of PD 1529 contemplates a situation where when an owner's duplicate certificate of title is lost or destroyed, a person who is a transferee of the ownership over the property, who is not necessarily the registered owner, may also file a petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate after notice and due hearing. In this situation, the registered owner must also be duly notified of the proceedings. By his or her very status as registered owner, the latter is an interested party in the petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate. This is pursuant to the legal presumption that the registered owner is the owner of the property, thus affording him preferential right over the owner's duplicate, duly notifying him would prevent a person who wrongfully purports to be the owner of the property to commit fraud. It would offer the registered owner sufficient opportunity to contest the supposed interest of the person filing the petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate. The rule on the mandatory notification of the registered owner in a petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate filed by another person who is not the registered owner is to ensure an orderly proceeding and to safeguard the due process rights of the registered owner. It prevents the commission of fraud. (Heirs of Spouses Ramirez v. Abon, G.R. No. 222916, July 24, 2019.)

The requirement that the owner's duplicate certificate of title be presented for voluntary transactions is precisely what gives the registered owner "security" and "peace of mind" under the Torrens system. Without the owner's duplicate certificate of title, transfers and conveyances and agencies and trusts, while valid, will not bind the registered land. Hence, a registered owner has a substantive right to own and possess the owner's duplicate certificate of title and to replace the same in case of loss or destruction.

Also, if the loss of the certificate of title has been proven, the court, after notice and hearing, should direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate in its original form and condition, with a memorandum of the fact that it is being issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate. On the other hand, if the loss is not proven, the court, after notice and hearing, should dismiss the petition without prejudice to the registered owner's subsequent compliance with the requisites prescribed by law. Therefore, X Corporation cannot be barred by res judicata from filing a second petition to replace its owner’s duplicate certificate of title in case of loss or destruction of the original duplicate. (Philippine Bank of Communications v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Benguet, G.R. No. 222958, March 11, 2020.)

Updated: LRA or Registry of Deeds certifications used for reconstitution must state whether the original title was on file and in force when lost or destroyed, briefly explain what happened to it, and name the registered owner if known (Faustino Co Shu Kiam v. Republic, G.R. No. 279277, 29 June 2026).

Petitions for Reconstitution

In sum, RA 26 separates petitions for reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title into two main groups with two different requirements and procedures. Sources enumerated in Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and 4(a) of RA 26 are lumped under one group (Group A); and sources enumerated in Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 3(f) are placed together under another group (Group B). For Group A, the requirements for judicial reconstitution are set forth in Section 10 in relation to Section 9 of RA 26; while for Group B, the requirements are in Sections 12 and 13 of the same law. (Puzon v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., G.R. No. 139518, March 6, 2001)

Petitions for Reconstitution under R.A. 26

Effect of Failure to Comply with Publication or Posting Requirements

If an order of reconstitution is issued without any previous publication, such order of reconstitution is null and void. Even the publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation like the Manila Daily Bulletin is not in substantial compliance with the law because Section 13 specifies publication in the OG and does not provide for any alternative medium or manner of publication (MWSS v. Sison, G.R. No. L-40309, Aug. 31, 1983.)

The notice must be actually sent or delivered to parties affected by the petition for reconstitution. The order of reconstitution issued without compliance with the said requirement never becomes final - it was null and void (Manila Railroad v. Moya, G.R. No. L-17913, Jun. 22, 1965.)

Respondent, as possessor thereof, or as one who is known to have an interest in the property, should have been sent a copy of the notice at the expense of the petitioner, pursuant to section 13 of RA 26. It is clear from section 13 that notice by publication is not sufficient under the circumstances. Notice must be actually sent or delivered to parties affected by the petition for reconstitution. The order of reconstitution, therefore, having been issued without compliance with the said requirement, has never become final as it was null and void. (Manila Railroad Company v. Moya, G.R. No. L-17913, June 22, 1965)

The failure to meet any of the necessary publication, notice of hearing, and mailing requirements did not vest jurisdiction of the case to the court. Thus, the judgment rendered by the RTC regarding the reconstitution of title is void (Republic v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 146081, Jul. 17, 2006.)

For non-compliance with the actual notice requirement in Section 13 in relation to Section 12 of RA 26, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the LRC Case. The proceedings in that case were thus a nullity and the order was void. (Republic v. Spouses Roberto, G.R. No. 146081, July, 17, 2006)

Administrative Reconstitution

Originally embodied in R.A. 26, abrogated through P.D. 1529, then partially revived through R.A. 6732.

R.A. 6732 provides for retroactive application thereof to cases 15 years immediately preceding 1989.

Requisites (R.A. 6732, § 1.)

• There is a substantial loss or destruction of the original land titles due to fire, flood, or other force majeure as determined by the Administrator of the LRA
• The number of certificates of title lost or damaged should be at least 10% of the total number in the possession of the Office of the ROD; and
• These lost or damaged titles should not be less than 500.

Contents of Certification (R.A. No. 11573, Sec. 7)

• A sworn statement by the geodetic engineer that the land is within the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
• Applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamations and the Land Classification Project Map Number covering the subject land. Should there be no available copy of the Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamation, it is sufficient that the Land Classification (LC) Map Number, Project Number, and date of release indicated in the land classification map be stated in the sworn statement declaring that said classification map is existing in the inventory of LC Map records of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) and is being used by the DENR.

LRA report

The LRA must submit a REPORT on or before the date of hearing, indicating which of the lots subject of the reconstitution have already been issued titles and that, conversely, the Court, after considering the REPORT must render a Decision taking into consideration said Report. (Supreme Court ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 7-96)

HOWEVER, non-compliance with this circular does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution.

It is not mandatory, however, for the reconstitution court to wait for such LRA Report indefinitely. If none is forthcoming on or before the date of the initial hearing, it may validly issue an order or judgment granting reconstitution. (Felicisimo Opriasa vs. The City Government Of Quezon City, G.R. No. 149190, December 19, 2006 citing Puzon v. Sta. Lucia Realty & Development Inc)

The required quantum of evidence to reconstitute a certificate of title is clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the lower court granted the reconstitution of titles on a mere preponderance of evidence. Additionally, the CA relied primarily on the second LRA report to affirm the decision of reconstitution, but this was erroneous since both the first and second LRA reports had no probative value. Under Section 23, Rule 132 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein; other public documents are evidence of the fact giving rise to their execution and its date. This rule concerns evidentiary effect, not whether a document is classified as public. An LRA report containing qualifying entries in public records is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, but a report lacking probative value cannot support reconstitution.

Since jurisprudence, LRA Circular No. 35 and SC Administrative Circular No. 7-96 state that the LRA must both submit its report and attend the hearing through one of their officials for the reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates, the failure of the RTC to comply with one of the requirements means that the petition for reconstitution should be dismissed.

Finally, LRA Circular No. 35 requires that the RD shall submit “written findings” of the status of the title to be reconstituted. According to jurisprudence, the Certificate that Respondent X presented fails to meet this requirement. Thus, this is another ground to dismiss Respondent X’s petition for reconstitution. (Republic v. Manansala, G.R. No. 241890, May 3, 2021).

Updated: A reconstitution certification must state whether the original title was on file and in force when lost or destroyed, explain the loss or destruction, and name the registered owner if known (Faustino Co Shu Kiam v. Republic, G.R. No. 279277, 29 June 2026).