G.R. No. 260831 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PATRICIO B. BELLA, RESPONDENT. February 26, 2025

This is a Petition for Review onCertiorari^[1]filed by the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General, seeking the reversal of the Decision,^[2]dated January 31, 2022, and the Order,^[3]dated April 28, 2022, of Branch 21, Regional Trial Court, Imus City, Cavite (RTC), in LRC Case No. 3636-19. The RTC granted the Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim Annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 057-2011014198, pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26.^[4]

The Facts

The respondent, Patricio B. Bella (Bella), is the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Imus City, Cavite containing an area of 1,453 square meters. The parcel of land is covered by TCT No. 057-2011014198, which contains two annotations of encumbrances, as follows:

PURSUANT TO SECTION 7, [REPUBLIC] ACT [NO.] 26, THIS CERT. OF TITLE THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH HAS BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY RECONSTITUTED IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY WHOSE RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY WAS DULY NOTED IN SAID ORIGINAL COPY DURING THE TIME IT WAS LOST OR DESTROYED BUT NOTATION OF WHICH HAS BEEN MADE IN THE RECONSTITUTED TITLE.
CAVITE CITY. OCT. 18, 1960

(SGD) E. CUEVAS
REGISTER OF DEEDS

ENTRY NO. 8364 - AFFIDAVIT OF ADVERSE CLAIM - EXECUTED BY GERONIMO B. BELLA AND EDUARDO B. BELLA - COVERING THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THIS CERT. OF TITLE, BY VIRTUE OF AFFIDAVIT OF ADVERSE CLAIM, EXECUTED BEFORE NOTARY PUBLIC FOR T.M.C. ATTY. NICOLAS, (DOC. NO. 243; PAGE NO. 63; BOOK NO. LXIV; SERIES [OF 1996].
COPY ON FILE IN THIS REGISTRY.
DATE OF INSTRUMENT- MAY 31, 1996.
DATE OF INSCRIPTION - MAY 31, 1996 AT 9:35A.M.

(SGD) DIOSDADO A. CONCEPCION

DEP. REGISTER OF DEEDS

NOTE: THE ENCUMBRANCES ANNOTATED ABOVE HAVE BEEN COPIED FROM TCT NO. T-240146, BOOK 1304, PAGE 146[.]

Casiano C. Arcillas
Deputy [Register] of Deeds.^[5]

On June 21, 2019, Bella sought the cancellation of these annotations or encumbrances through a Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim.^[6]In his Petition, Bella averred that pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26,^[7]the statutory period of two years had long lapsed since the reconstitution registered on October 18, 1960 and notwithstanding this, no claim has ever been presented by any party.^[8]As to the adverse claim, Bella averred that it is no longer valid and effective because more than 30 days had already lapsed since its annotation on May 31, 1996. Further, Geronimo B. Bella (Geronimo) and Eduardo B. Bella (Eduardo), who sold the property to him in 2011, are already deceased as evidenced by their Death Certificates.^[9]

The Ruling of the RTC

The RTC granted the Petition. It ruled and disposed:

Considering that the entries sought to be cancelled has [sic] been annotated in TCT No. 057-2011014198 for more than the reglementary periods and that no person or entity had laid claims over the property subject of the said TCT since its annotation, the action of this Court is to grant the relief prayed for by petitioner herein.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is herebyGRANTED. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite is ordered, upon payment of the prescribed fees, to cancel the annotation of encumbrance and adverse claim at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 057-2011014198 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite upon presentation of proof of payment of the necessary udpated taxes.

SO ORDERED.^[10](Emphasis in the original)

On March 23, 2022, the Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration.^[11]The Republic argued that the notice requirement pursuant to Section 9 of Republic Act No. 26,^[12]particularly the requirement of publication twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, was not complied with. The Republic averred that the records furnished to it show that the notice of the Petition was only posted, but not published as required by law.^[13]The Republic further argued that the records do not indicate any evidence to support the conclusion that the adverse claim is unmeritorious and should therefore be cancelled. The reasons in the Decision were that the reglementary period of 30 days has lapsed, and that the adverse claimants were the persons who sold the property to Bella in 2011, and that they have already died. However, even though the adverse claimants have already died, as proven through their death certificates, the same death certificates indicate that they have surviving relatives. Thus, the surviving relatives should have been given notice.^[14]

In Bella's Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration,^[15]dated April 22, 2022, Bella averred that the heirs of the deceased adverse claimants were given the opportunity to be heard because there was notice to them when the RTC Order,^[16]dated June 8, 2020, was posted. Thus, Bella argues that he should not be faulted for the failure of the heirs of the deceased adverse claimants to participate in the hearing.^[17]

On April 28, 2022, the RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. It ruled:

Looking at Section 9 of [Republic Act] No. 26, the publication requirement appears to be applicable only for petitions filed within the two­ year time frame. Thus, the last sentence of the same provision allows cancellation of the encumbrance via a mere Motion ex-parte if it is already beyond the two-year period. This is starkly different from that filed within the two-year period which requires that it be a petition and publication requirements are fulfilled. Thus, though the instant case was captioned as "Petition", [sic] the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding is controlled by the averments and character of the relief sought in the complaint or petition. The designation given by parties to their own pleadings does not necessarily bind the courts to treat it according to the said designation. Rather than rely on "a falsa descriptio[n] or defective caption", [sic] Courts are "guided by the substantive averments of the [pleadings.]"

SO ORDERED.^[18]

Hence, this Petition.

The Issue

Did the RTC err in ordering the cancellation of the adverse claim?

The Ruling of the Court

The Petition is partly meritorious.

The Petition filed by Bella before the RTC concerns the removal of two annotations on TCT No. 057-2011014198.^[19]The first annotation was placed as mandated by Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26 upon the administrative reconstitution of a lost or destroyed original Torrens title, while the second annotation pertains to an affidavit of adverse claim covered by Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

As regards the first annotation, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26 provides:

Section 7. Reconstituted certificates of title shall have the same validity and legal effect as the originals thereof:Provided, however, Thatcertificates of title reconstituted extrajudicially, in the manner stated in sections five and six hereof,shall be without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but entry or notation of which has not been made on the reconstituted certificate of title. This reservation shall be noted as an encumbrance on the reconstituted certificate of title. (Emphasis supplied)

The above-quoted provision mandates that any reconstituted certificate of title should bear an annotation as an encumbrance, serving as a protective measure for individuals whose rights or interests were duly noted on the original title but not reflected on the reconstituted certificate. This reservation acts as a safeguard, putting interested parties on notice that they may have a claim that needs to be re-annotated on the reconstituted title.

With this reservation in place, Section 8 outlines the process by which omitted interests can be reflected on the reconstituted title:

Section 8. Any person whose right or interest was duly noted in the original of a certificate of title, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but does not appear so noted on the reconstituted certificate of title, which is subject to the reservation provided in the preceding section, may,while such reservation subsists, file a petition with the proper Court of First Instance for the annotation of such right or interest on said reconstituted certificate of title, and the court, after notice and hearing, shall determine the merits of the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. The petition shall state the number of the reconstituted certificate of title and the nature, as well as a description, of the right or interest claimed. (Emphasis supplied)

In line with this, Section 9 outlines the procedure for a party seeking to have his reconstituted certificate of title freed from the encumbrance specified in Section 7:

Section 9. A registered owner desiring to have his reconstituted certificate of title freed from the encumbrance mentioned in section seven of this Act, may file a petition to that end with the proper Court of First Instance, giving his reason or reasons therefor. A similar petition may, likewise, be filed by a mortgagee, lessees or other lien holder whose interest is annotated in the reconstituted certificate of title. Thereupon, the court shall cause a notice of the petition to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of theOfficial Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land lies, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing, and after hearing, shall determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. The notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title, the name of the registered owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, the location of the property, and the date on which all persons having an interest in the property must appear and file such claim as they may have. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication and posting of the notice:Provided, however, That after the expiration of two years from the date of the reconstitution of a certificate of title, if no petition has been filed within that period under the preceding section, the court shall, on motion ex parte by the registered owner or other person having registered interest in the reconstituted certificate of title, order the register of deeds to cancel, proper annotation, the incumbrance mentioned in section seven hereof.^[20](Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, the law allows individuals with rights or interests noted on the original certificate but missing from the reconstituted title to file a petition with the Court of First Instance. This petition must be filed within the two-year period from the date of reconstitution established by Section 9. If no such petition is filed, Section 9 authorizes the registered owner to request the cancellation of the annotation, providing certainty and finality in the title.

As correctly argued by Bella, the two-year period had long lapsed since the subject TCT was reconstituted on October 18, 1960 and since then, no petition has been filed by any party claiming that they had an interest annotated in the lost or destroyed TCT which was not carried over to the reconstituted TCT.

Since no petition was filed within the two-year period, Section 9 permits the registered owner, in this case, Bella, to request the cancellation of the Section 7 annotation by filing anex partemotion. This is in alignment with the legislative intent to clear titles of provisional encumbrances after affected parties have had ample time to assert their claims.

The Second Annotation must be retained

With regard to the cancellation of the adverse claim on the TCT, Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides:

Section 70.Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number of the certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.

The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant's residence, and a place at which all notices may be served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of registration.After the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse claim may be canceled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in interest:Provided, however, that after cancellation, no second adverse claim based on the same ground shall be registered by the same claimant.

Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a petition in the Court of First Instance where the land is situated for the cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim, and shall render judgment as may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration thereof shall be ordered canceled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing, shall find that the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in an amount not less than one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the lapse of thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a sworn petition to that effect.^[21](Emphasis supplied)

InEquatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Spouses Desiderio,^[22]the Court clarified that the provision regarding the 30-day effectivity of adverse claims does not automatically render the claim ineffective after that period:

Construing the provision as a whole would reconcile the apparent inconsistency between the portions of the law such that the provision on cancellation of adverse claim by verified petition would serve to qualify the provision on the effectivity period. The law, taken together, simply means that the cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary to render it ineffective, otherwise, the inscription will remain annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the property. For if the adverse claim has already ceased to be effective upon the lapse of the said period, its cancellation is no longer necessary and the process of cancellation would be a useless ceremony.

It should be noted that the law employs the phrase "may be cancelled," which obviously indicates, as inherent in its decision making power, that the court may or may not order the cancellation of an adverse claim notwithstanding such provision limiting the effectivity of an adverse claim for thirty days from the date of registration. The court cannot be bound by such period as it would be inconsistent with the very authority vested in it. Afortiori, the limitation on the period of effectivity is immaterial in determining the validity or invalidity of an adverse claim which is the principal issue to be decided in the court hearing. It will therefore depend upon the evidence at a proper hearing for the court to determine whether it will order the cancellation of the adverse claim or not.

To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse claim as absolute and without qualification limited to thirty days defeats the purpose for which the statute provides for the remedy of an inscription of an adverse claim, as the annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or Act 496 (now [Presidential Decree No.] 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves as a warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better right than the registered owner thereof.

The reason why the law provides for a hearing where the validity of the adverse claim is to be threshed out is to afford the adverse claimant an opportunity to be heard, providing a venue where the propriety of his claimed interest can be established or revoked, all for the purpose of determining at last the existence of any encumbrance on the title arising from such adverse claim[.]^[23]

Clearly, the mere lapse of the 30-day period under Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 is not the sole factor in determining the validity of an adverse claim. The law intends for a hearing to be held to assess the validity of the adverse claim, allowing the claimant to present evidence to determine whether the claimed interest can be revoked.

A hearing is necessary to determine whether the claim should be revoked. This requirement ensures that the adverse claimant is given due process. In this case, no hearing was conducted. The RTC granted the cancellation of the second annotation on the mere ground that the reglementary period of 30 days had long lapsed.^[24]

Further, Bella did not implead the known heirs, whose names were indicated in the Death Certificates of Geronimo and Eduardo, as respondents in the Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim. This is in clear disregard of due process.

InChua, et al v. B.E. San Diego, Inc.,^[25]the Court ruled that an amendment or alteration effected without notice to an adverse claimant would not be in compliance with law or due process:

The above provision requires that all interested parties must be duly notified of the petitioner's application for amendment or alteration of the certificate of title. Relief under the said legal provision can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or that there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest.

Without doubt, San Diego, a party-in-interest with an adverse claim, was not duly notified of the said petition. The records reveal that despite their knowledge about its adverse claim over the subject properties, Jimmy and Albert never notified San Diego about their application or petition for amendment or alteration of title. This Court agrees with the CA that the lack of notice to San Diego placed in serious question the validity of the CFI judgment or its enforceability against it. An amendment/alteration effected without notice to the affected owners would not be in compliance with law or the requirements of due process.^[26]

In light of the foregoing, Bella's failure to implead the known heirs and to notify all interested parties constitutes a clear violation of due process, making the Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim fatally deficient.

FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review onCertiorariisPARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision, dated January 31, 2022, of Branch 21, Regional Trial Court of Imus City, Cavite, in LRC Case No. 3636-19 isMODIFIED.The Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite isORDERED, upon payment of the prescribed fees,to CANCELthe annotation of encumbrance at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 057-2011014198 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite upon presentation of proof of payment of the necessary updated taxes. The Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim isDISMISSEDwith respect to the Second Annotation, Entry No. 8364.

SO ORDERED.

Inting, Gaerlan, andDimaampao, JJ., concur.
Caguioa (Chairperson), J., see concurring opinion.

^[2]Id.at 32-34. Penned by Presiding Judge Rocille S. Aquino-Tambasacan.

^[3]Id.at 35-36.

^[4]Id.at 38-41.

^[5]Id.at 65.

^[6]Id.at 38-41.

^[7]Republic Act No. 26 (1946), sec. 7, An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title Lost or Destroyed.

Section 7. Reconstituted certificates of title shall have the same validity and legal effect as the originals thereof: Provided, however, That certificates of title reconstituted extrajudicially, in the manner stated in sections five and six hereof, shall be without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but entry or notation of which has not been made on the reconstituted certificate of title. This reservation shall be noted as an encumbrance on the reconstituted certificate of title.

^[8]Rollo, p. 39.

^[9]Id.

^[10]Id.at 34.

^[11]Id.at 42-50.

^[12]Section 9. A registered owner desiring to have his reconstituted certificate of title freed from the encumbrance mentioned in section seven of this Act, may file a petition to that end with the proper Court of First Instance, giving his reason or reasons therefor. A similar petition may, likewise, be filed by a mortgagee, lessees or other lien holder whose interest is annotated in the reconstituted certificate of title. Thereupon, the court shall cause a notice of the petition to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land lies, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing, and after hearing, shall determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. The notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title, the name of the registered owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, the location of the property, and the date on which all persons having an interest in the property must appear and file such claim as they may have. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication and posting of the notice: Provided, however, That after the expiration of two years from the date of the reconstitution of a certificate of title, if no petition has been filed within that period under the preceding section, the court shall, on motion ex parte by the registered owner or other person having registered interest in the reconstituted certificate of title, order the register of deeds to cancel, proper annotation, the encumbrance mentioned in section seven hereof.

^[13]Rollo, p. 45.

^[14]Id.at 48.

^[15]Id.at 79-84.

^[16]Id.at 51-52.

^[17]Id.at 81.

^[18]Id.at 35-36.

^[19]Id.at 57-58.

^[20]Republic Act No. 26 (1946), sec. 9.

^[21]Presidential Decree No. 1529 (1978), sec. 70, Amending and Codifying the Laws Relative to Registration of Property and for Other Purposes.

^[22]470 Phil. 47 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

^[23]Id.at 60-61.

^[24]Rollo, p. 33.

^[25]708 Phil. 386 (2013) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].

^[26]Id. at 418-419.

Theponenciain the above-captioned case partially grants the petition and modifies theDecisionof the Regional Trial Court ordering the cancellation of the two annotations at the back of the subject transfer certificate of title (TCT).^[1]Specifically, theponenciarules that the First Annotation— a mandatory encumbrance in administratively reconstituted titles—may already be cancelled following the express language of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26.^[2]

I concur in theponenciaand find it opportune to briefly dissect the relevant provisions of R.A. No. 26, as well as underscore the following observations:

(i)	the limited encumbrance under R.A. No. 26 mirrors the lien under Rule 74, Section 4 of the Rules of Court;
(ii)	in the present case, the prescriptive period for real actions over immovable properties has long lapsed, barring any claims sought to be protected by the encumbrance; and
(iii)	modernization efforts, particularly electronic titling, has substantially diminished the necessity for reconstitution of titles.

R.A. No. 26 requires the annotation of a mandatory encumbrance on titles that have been administratively reconstituted, with the purpose of protecting parties whose rights were omitted during reconstitution. However, the existence of such reservation is finite, reconciling the rights of potential claimants with the need for stability and finality in land titles.

To recall, the First Annotation in this case reads:

PURSUANT TO SECTION 7, [REPUBLIC] ACT [NO.] 26, THIS CERT. OF TITLE THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH HAS BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY RECONSTITUTED IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY WHOSE RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY WAS DULY NOTED IN SAID ORIGINAL COPY DURING THE TIME IT WAS LOST OR DESTROYED BUT NOTATION OF WHICH HAS [NOT] BEEN MADE IN THE RECONSTITUTED TITLE.
CAVITE CITY. OCT. I 8, 1960

(SGD) E. CUEVAS
REGISTER OF DEEDS^[3]

As explicitly provided, the annotation is one made pursuant to Section 7 of R.A. No. 26 which mandates that all administratively reconstituted titles contain a specific annotation of encumbrance-a reservation in favor of any person who has an annotated interest in the lost or destroyed title which, however, was not carried over in the reconstituted title:

SECTION 7. Reconstituted certificates of title shall have the same validity and legal effect as the originals thereof:Provided, however, Thatcertificates of title reconstituted extrajudicially, in the manner stated in sections five and six hereof,shall be without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but entry or notation of which has not been made on the reconstituted certificate of title.This reservation shall be noted as an encumbrance on the reconstituted certificate of title.(Emphasis supplied)

With such reservation in place, Section 8^[4]of R.A. No. 26 provides for the procedure by which such omitted interest may be reflected in the reconstituted title, i.e., through the filing of a petition for annotation while the reservation subsists.

The limitation to the protection afforded by Section 7, in turn, is embodied in Section 9 of R.A. No. 26 which outlines the procedure for a party seeking to have his or her reconstituted certificate of title freed from the encumbrance. The full text of Section 9 reads:

SECTION 9. A registered owner desiring to have his reconstituted certificate of title freed from the encumbrance mentioned in section seven of this Act, may file a petition to that end with the proper Court of First Instance, giving his reason or reasons therefor. A similar petition may, likewise, be filed by a mortgagee, lessees or other lien holder whose interest is annotated in the reconstituted certificate of title. Thereupon, the court shall cause a notice of the petition to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of theOfficial Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land lies, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing, and after hearing, shall determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. The notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title, the name of the registered owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, the location of the property, and the date on which all persons having an interest in the property must appear and file such claim as they may have. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication and posting of the notice:Provided, however, Thatafter the expiration of two yearsfrom the date of the reconstitution of a certificate of title, if no petition has been filed within that period under the preceding section,the court shall, on motionex parteby the registered owner or other person having registered interest in the reconstituted certificate of title,order the register of deeds to cancel, proper annotation, the incumbrance mentioned in section seven hereof.(Emphasis supplied)

As correctly identified by theponencia, the last portion of Section 9, as emphasized above, clearly states that if after the lapse of two years from administrative reconstitution, no petition has been filed by a person who has an annotated interest in the lost or destroyed title,^[5]the court shall,upon only anex partemotion, already order the register of deeds to remove the mandatory annotation.

Section 9, as fully quoted above, outlines the general rule and the exception as to how an R.A. No. 26 reservation may be removed from the reconstituted title:

(i)	as ageneral rule, a petition must be filed with the trial court, the notice of which must be published twice in the Official Gazette and posted at the provincial and municipality buildings of the municipality or city in which the land lies, after which a hearing on the petition shall be conducted to ascertain the propriety of cancelling the reservation; and
(ii)	as anexception, if two years have already lapsed since the date of the reconstitution of the title, and no petition under Section 8 has been filed, the court shall, only upon anex partemotion, order the register of deeds to cancel the reservation.

As applied in this case, theponenciacorrectly ruled that the First Annotation should already be cancelled as the two requisites under the exception provided in Section 9 have already been complied with—first, it is evident that the two-year period has already lapsed as the subject TCT was reconstituted on October 18, 1960;^[6]andsecond, since 1960, no petition has been filed by any party claiming that they had an interest annotated in the lost or destroyed TCT which was not carried over to the reconstituted TCT.^[7]Accordingly, notice to any adverse party is dispensed with, and the petition in the present case, despite not being published, is sufficient for purposes of cancelling the First Annotation.

Notably, the R.A. No. 26 encumbrance functions similarly to the two-year lien under Rule 74, Section 4 of the Rules of Court which protects heirs, creditors, or other claimants who were unduly deprived of their lawful participation in extrajudicially or summarily settled estates:

SEC. 4.Liability of distributees and estate. — If it shall appear at any time within two (2) years after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation. And if within the same time of two (2) years, it shall appear that there are debts outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if circumstances require, against the bond provided in the preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both.Such bond and such real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period of two (2) years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made. (Emphasis supplied)

The above safeguard, however, is likewise limited—omitted or impaired rights must be asserted within two years. After such period, the protective mantle afforded by Rule 74, Section 4 is lifted, leaving subsequent transferees clear of dormant claims. The procedure for the cancellation of a Rule 74 lien is provided in Section 86 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529:

SEC. 86.Extrajudicial settlement of estate. — When a deed of extrajudicial settlement has been duly registered, the Register of Deeds shall annotate on the proper title the two-year lien mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.Upon the expiration of the two-year period and presentation of a verified petition by the registered heirs, devisees or legatees or any other party in interest that no claim or claims of any creditor, heir or other person exist, the Register of Deeds shall cancel the two-year lien noted on the title without the necessity of a court order.The verified petition shall be entered in the Primary Entry Book and a memorandum thereof made on the title. (Emphasis supplied)

Whereas R.A. No. 26 requires a motion and judicial action, the cancellation of an annotation under Rule 74 may proceed by verified petition alone. In both instances, nonetheless, the lapse of the two-year period signals that the mandatory annotation in a certificate of title may already be cancelled upon motion or petition.

The two-year reservation periods under R.A. No. 26 and Rule 74 underscore a common policy objective: both provisions impose a clear, time-bound mechanism for asserting omitted rights. By providing a limitation to the protection afforded by the mandatory liens, both legal frameworks strike a deliberate balance between recognizing excluded claims and promoting finality in registered land transactions.

Even if one sets aside the two-year period under R.A. No. 26, any possible claims relating to omitted interests have long been extinguished by prescription.

Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.^[8]Under Article 1141 of the Civil Code, "[r]eal actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years."^[9]This limitation is not merely procedural but reflects a public policy grounded in the need for stability in legal relations. InAntonio, Jr. v. Morales,^[10]the Court discussed the rationale behind statutes on extinctive prescription:

[T]he prescription of an action refers to the time within which an action must be brought after the right of action has accrued. The prescriptive statutes serve to protect those who are diligent and vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.The rationale behind the prescription of actions is to prevent fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at great distances of time, thus surprising the parties or their representatives when the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or the defective memory or death or removal of the witnesses. Prescription applies even to the most meritorious claims.(2007) (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, where the administrative reconstitution occurred in 1960 and no claims have been filed since, it is imperative to ask a practical question:does the law truly contemplate maintaining a 64-year reservation in a title?

Clearly, all causes of action embodied in any supposed annotation in the lost or destroyed title—which were thus noted prior to October 18, 1960 but not reflected in the reconstituted title—would have already prescribed. It is verily in this context that Section 9 carves out an exception from the publication and posting requirements, and Section 8 mentions that the remedy thereon may be availed of only "while the reservation subsists"^[11]—persons whose interests are protected by the reservation under Section 7 are charged to timely file their claim to have any omitted interest reflected in the reconstituted title, otherwise such reservation may already be removedex parte.

The periods provided under R.A. No. 26 and the Civil Code are not mere countdowns. Rather, they urge parties to assert their claims without delay and shield titled property from the perpetual threat of litigation. Here, with six decades having passed since the reconstitution of the subject title, the balance must now rest firmly in favor of freeing the registered owner from any stale and long-abandoned claims.

At the outset, the original scope of R.A. No. 26—i.e., the reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title-was narrowed by Section 110 of P.D. No. 1529, as amended by Republic Act No. 6732, which confinedadministrativereconstitution to: (i) cases involving original titles on file with the register of deeds, and (ii) only where there is substantial loss or destruction of records due to fire, flood, or otherforce majeure.^[12]

More importantly, however, the shift to a fully digital land records system under theLand Titling Computerization Project(LTCP) has further confined the instances where recourse to reconstitution remains relevant.

In 2011, as part of the digital transformation under the LTCP, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) issuedLRA Circular No. 27-2011,^[13]formally launching theVoluntary Title Standardization Programwhich governs the conversion of manually-issued or physical titles into computerized and electronic certificates of title (eTitles). Under this program, manually-issued certificates are, upon petition of the registered owner/s, deactivated and replaced with eTitles generated and maintained within the LRA's computerized system. The initiative aims to enhance the integrity, accessibility, and permanence of land title records.

LRA Circular No. 27-2011identified three core benefits of the program to the public: (1) faster processing of transactions, since register of deeds personnel need not retrieve physical titles subject of a transaction; (2)protection of"original copies of titles from loss by storing [these] in its electronic original form,which are regularly backed-up as owners shall no longer go through the expensive and tedious process of reconstitution";^[14]and (3) clearer certified true copies (CTCs), which are now generated from digital records rather than scanned images of manual or physical titles. The LRA reinforced this initiative throughLRA Circular No. 16-2014^[15]by expanding the implementing guidelines on electronic registration.

However, as participation in the Voluntary Title Standardization Program was, by design, left to the discretion of registered owners, the LRA later recognized that an opt-in mechanism was insufficient to fully realize the systemic benefits of eTitling.

Accordingly, in 2016, the LRA deemed it necessary to accelerate the phasing-out of manually-issued or physical original certificates of titles by requiring their conversion into eTitles as a condition for processing certain transactions.^[16]This modernization push was enforced throughLRA Circular Nos. 001-16^[17]and02-2017^[18]which set forth theTitle Upgrade Program.

Under the Title Upgrade Program framework, titles subject of annotation-type transactions, i.e., voluntary transactions for interests less than ownership, shall first be subject to conversion to eTitles before annotations are processed:

SECTION 1.3 Voluntary transactions on manually-issued titles that are not yet converted into eTitles after such period shall no longer be accepted for processing in LRA and its Registries of Deeds, and must undergo conversion into eTitles prior to transaction processing.^[19]

By requiring the prior conversion of manually-issued or physical copies of titles into eTitles before any annotation-type transaction may be processed, the LRA substantially removed the discretionary nature of participation in eTitling and accelerated the transition to a fully electronic registry. This directive ensures that even non-transfer transactions serve as a trigger point for eTitling, thereby reinforcing the system-wide shift toward digital land records.

The LRA's digital transformation efforts were further complemented by new operational tools and updated workflows, including: (i) an automated self-service system for requesting CTCs;^[20](ii) allowing registers of deed tomotu proprioinitiate the digitization and cataloging of manually-issued titles in preparation for eventual e-Title conversion;^[21]and (iii) the issuance of joint administrative guidelines with the Department of Agrarian Reform governing the issuance of individual e-Titles and the computerized and electronic annotation of agrarian reform conditions under collective certificates of land ownership awards.^[22]Notably, however, the Voluntary Title Standardization Program is currently suspended throughLRA Circular No. 03-2023,^[23]as the LRA undertakes further review of the program's resources, procedures, and security protocols to uphold the integrity of the Torrens system and enhance the program's implementation.

Taken altogether, these reforms underscore the LRA's broader goal: establishing a digital infrastructure that ensures all original registry copies of titles—and the annotations they bear—can no longer be lost, altered, or omitted due to physical risks. All CTCs will also be generated from a centralized electronic source record, and therefore, will consistently reflect all valid encumbrances annotated on a title.

As recognized inSpouses Manalese v. The Estate of Spouses Ferreras,^[24]the advent of computerized and electronic titles means that there may no longer be physical original certificates of title and transfer certificates of title in the registry as previously understood under P.D. No. 1529:

With computerized and electronic titles, the Court understands that there may no longer be a physical original certificate of title—the one referred to in Sections 39 and 40 of PD 1529, regarding the Original Certificate of Title and Section 43, regarding the Transfer Certificate of Title, or the "government copy" as it is referred to at present in a Memorandum issued by LRA—which is to be kept by the Register of Deeds. The said original certificate of title is now in digital form stored in the LRA Computerized System being maintained by the Land Registration Systems, Inc. (LARES). Pursuant to the said LRA Memorandum, a copy of the digitized original certificate of title may be obtained from the Register of Deeds and this copy generated from the LRA Computerized System, which is called as an electronic title or "eTitle," is now being referred to as computerized title or "eTitle." Only the owner's duplicate certificate of title is issued by the Register of Deeds in physical form.^[25]

As a result, the scope of reconstitution under R.A. No. 26, as amended by P.D. No. 1529,^[26]continues to narrow steadily, now applying only in cases where the original registry copy has yet to be converted to an eTitle. However, thejudicialreplacement of lost owner's duplicate certificates, which is still issued by the register of deeds in physical form, remains governed by a separate process under Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529.

In sum, the legal and technological safeguards introduced by the eTitling framework are gradually displacing the operational premise of R.A. No. 26. Once all certificates of title exist in digital form within the LRA's secure and backed-up system, it is hoped that reconstitution of titles in the registry—whether judicial or administrative—will no longer be necessary. This is the very vision of the digital shift: that electronic custody becomes the standard, insulating titles from the vulnerabilities that once warranted reconstitution. And even as the land registration system evolves through modern tools, it remains anchored in the enduring principles of the Torrens system—the indefeasibility and reliability of registered titles.

In all, I concur that the First Annotation should be cancelled, consistent with the plain language of R.A. No. 26, the operation of prescription, and the policy foundations of our evolving land registration system.

Accordingly, ICONCURwith theponenciaand vote toPARTIALLY GRANTthe Petition. The Petition for Cancellation for Adverse Claim should only be dismissed with respect to the Second Annotation. The First Annotation was properly cancelled by the trial court in light of the clear language of R.A. No. 26.

^[2]Id.at 5-6.

^[3]Id.at 2.

^[4]R.A. No. 26 (1946), Sec. 8 provides:

SECTION 8. Any person whose right or interest was duly noted in the original of a certificate of title, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but does not appear so noted on the reconstituted certificate of title, which is subject to the reservation provided in the preceding section, may,while such reservation subsists, file a petition with the proper Court of First Instance for the annotation of such right or interest on said reconstituted certificate of title, and the court, after notice and hearing, shall determine the merits of the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. The petition shall state the number of the reconstituted certificate of title and the nature, as well as a description, of the right or interest claimed. (Emphasis supplied)

^[5]Ponencia, p. 6.

^[6]Id.

^[7]Id.

^[8]CIVIL CODE, art. 1139.

^[9]See alsoCIVIL CODE, art. 1137 which reads:

ART. 1137. Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.

^[10]541 Phil. 306 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First Division].

^[11]R.A. No. 26 (1946), sec. 8.

^[12]P.D. No. 1529 (1978), sec. 110, as amended by R.A. No. 6732 (1989), sec. 1, provides:

Sec. 110.Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed Original of Torrens Title. — Original copies of certificates of titles 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 toadministrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificate prescribed in said Act may be availed of only in case of substantial loss or destruction of land titles dueto fire, flood or otherforce majeureas determined by the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority:Provided, That the number of certificates of titles lost or damaged should be at least ten percent (10%) of the total number in the possession of the Office of the Register of Deeds:Provided, further, That in no case shall the number of certificates of titles lost or damaged be less than five hundred (500).

Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial reconstitution shall be furnished the Register of Deeds of the place where the land is situated and to the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority. No order or judgment ordering the reconstitution of a certificate of title shall become final until the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt by the Register of Deeds and by the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority of a notice of such order or judgment without any appeal having been filed by any such officials. (Emphasis supplied)

^[13]Implementation of the LRA Voluntary Title Standardization Program for the Conversion of Manually-Issued Titles into Electronic Certificates of Title Upon Request of the Registered Owner or Other Client Representing the Registered Owner, or His/Her Interest Thereof (2011).

^[14]Id.

^[15]Amendment to the Implementing Guidelines on Electronic Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, Published on July 5, 2009 (September 1, 2014).

^[16]Program for the Upgrade of all Manually-Issued Titles Within a 3-Year Period (January 26, 2016).

^[17]Id.

^[18]Addendum to LRA Circular No. 02-2016 with Subject: Program for the Upgrade of All Manually­ Issued Titles Within a 3-Year Period (January 6, 2017).

^[19]Supranote 18.

^[20]SeeLRA Circular No. 28-17, Implementation of the LRA System for Automated Client Entry for Certified True Copies of Certificates of Title ("ACE-CTC") (September 20, 2017).

^[21]SeeLRA Circular No. 15-2020, Implementation of the LRA Title Ready Program ("TRP") (August 18, 2020).

^[22]SeeJoint DAR-LRA Administrative Order No. 02, s. 2022, Registration and Annotation Requirements for Support to Parcelization of Land for Individual Titling and Annotation of the Conditions of the Order of Conversion (May 24, 2022).See alsoJoint DAR-LRA Administrative Order No. 01, s. 2024, Rules Governing the Re-Issuance of Owner's Duplicate Copy and Correction of Entries in the Collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CCLOA) Covered by Support to Parcelization of Lands for Individual Titling (SPLIT) Project (April 2, 2024).

^[23]Suspension of the Implementation of the LRA Voluntary Title Standardization Program (February 22, 2023).

^[24]G.R. No. 254046, November 25, 2024 [Per J. Caguioa, Third Division].

^[25]Id.at 35-36. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Decision uploaded to the Supreme Court website.

^[26]Supranote 12.