Republic of The Philippines Vs CA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
COURT
OF APPEALS and VICENTE L. YUPANGCO, JR.,
Private respondent Vicente Yupangco is the owner of a
unit in a condominium building in Legaspi Street,
Makati City (evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 7648).
His aforesaid certificate could not be located, so he
filed, on January 28, 1994, RTC a petition for the
issuance of a new duplicate certificate of title in lieu of
his lost copy, pursuant to 109 of P.D. No. 1529
(Property Registration Decree).
SEC. 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate.
In case of lost or theft of an owners duplicate certificate of
title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by
someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province
or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is
discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced by a person applying for the entry of a
new certificate to him or for the registration of any
instrument, a sworn statement of the facts of such loss or
destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other
person in interest and registered.
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in
interest, the court may, after notice and due hearing, direct
the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, which shall
contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of
the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be
entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and
shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this
decree.
According to Yupangco, Nothing in the law,

however, requires that the Office of the Solicitor
General be notified and heard in proceeding for
the issuance of an owners duplicate certificate
of title.
The trial court ordered the Register of Deeds of Makati
to comment on the petition and thereafter set the case
for initial hearing.
February 11, 1994, the Registrar of Deeds of Makati
filed a manifestation that she had no objection to the
petition.
Trial court granted the petition, declaring as
invalid the missing copy of the certificate of
title, and ordering the Registrar of Deeds of
Makati to issue a new owners duplicate
certificate of title in the name of private
respondent. A copy of this decision was
furnished the Solicitor General.
SG moved for reconsideration on the ground that no
copy of private respondents petition or notice
thereof had been given to him. The Solicitor General,
on the other hand, invokes 35(5), Chapter 12, Title III,
Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code which
provides:
SEC. 35. Powers and Functions. The Office of the Solicitor
General shall represent the Government of the
Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its
officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding,
investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers.
Xxxxx The Office of the Solicitor General shall discharge

duties requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have the
following specific powers and functions: xxxx
xxxxxxx
(5) Represent the Government in all land registration and
related proceedings. .
He contends that, in view of this provision, it was

mandatory for the trial court to notify him of private
respondents petition and that its failure to do so
rendered the proceedings before it null and void.
ISSUE: WON the Solicitor General is required to be
notified, such that failure to give such notice would
render the proceedings void?
RULING: NO.
THIS CASE SHOULD BE DISTIGUISHED FROM
CADASTRAL and ORIGINAL LAND REGISTRATION
PROCEEDINGS:
This case should be distinguished from our rulings in
cadastral registration cases[4] and original land
registration proceedings[5] which require that the
Solicitor General be notified of decisions and hold as
decisive, for the purpose of determining the timeliness
of the appeal filed by the government, the date of his
receipt of the decisions therein and not that of the
Director of Lands or of his other representatives.[6] The
issue and the applicable laws in those cases are
different.
The important role of the Office of the solicitor General
as the governments law office cannot be
overemphasized. Its powers and functions, however,
should not be rigidly applied in such a manner that
innocuous omissions, as in the case at bar, should be
visited with so grave a consequence as the nullification
of proceedings. After all, no prejudice to the
government has been shown.
------------------------------It is only now that the Solicitor General is claiming the
right to be notified of proceedings for the issuance of
the owners duplicate certificate of title. Indeed, the
only basis for such claim is that the Office of the
Solicitor General represents the government in land
registration and related proceedings. Even so,
however, the request for representation should
have come from the Registrar of Deeds of Makati
who was the proper party to the case. Here, there
is no dispute that the Registrar of Deeds of Makati was
notified of private respondents petition, but she
manifested that her office had no objection thereto.
He claims that the fact that he was given a copy of the
decision is an admission that he is entitled to be
notified of all incidents relating to the proceedings.
This is not correct. Considering that the law
does not impose such notice requirement in
proceedings for the issuance of a new owners
duplicate certificate of title, the lack of notice
to the Solicitor General, as counsel for the
Registrar of Deeds, was at most only a formal
and not a jurisdictional defect.

Republic of The Philippines Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippines Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippines Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

According to Yupangco, Nothing in the law,

Xxxxx The Office of the Solicitor General shall discharge

He contends that, in view of this provision, it was

You might also like