7/17/2019 Republic v CA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-v-ca-568d11fa43db9 1/1

Republic v CA

Facts:

On March 7, 1987, fre gutted the Oce o the Register o Deeds o Bulacan.

ri!ate res"ondent fled #ith the R$% o Bulacan a "etition or reconstitution o title

on the ground that its original #as a&ong the docu&ents destro'ed in the

con(agration. $he trial court issued an Order granting "ri!ate res"ondents "etition

or reconstitution. $he %) ar&ed such decision. $he "art' did not "resent the

actual co"' o the "u*lication the' &ade in the Ocial +aette.

 $he Re"u*lic ho#e!er clai&s that the certifcation o "u*lication issued *'

the -ational rinting Oce is not sucient "roo o "u*lication. $he *est e!idence

*eing the "resentation o the co"ies o the O+ #here the notice #as included.

ssue: /hether %) grie!ousl' disregarded the inade0uate e!idence su*&itted *'

"ri!ate res"ondents.

Ruling: -O

Reconstitution o title under R) -o.2 3)n )ct ro!iding a 4"ecial rocedure

or $he Reconstitution o $orrens %ertifcate o 5ost or Destro'ed6 is an action in rem

#hich &eans it is one directed not onl' against "articular "ersons *ut against the

thing itsel. ts o*ect is to *ar indierentl' all #ho &ight *e &inded to &ae an'

o*ection against the right sought to *e enorced hence the udg&ent therein is

*inding theoreticall' u"on the #hole #orld.

)nent the "u*lication re0uire&ent, R) -o. 2 o*ligates the "etitioner to

"ro!e to the trial courts t#o things, na&el' that: 316 its order gi!ing due course tothe "etition or reconstitution and setting it or hearing #as "u*lished t#ice, in t#o

consecuti!e issues o the Ocial +aette, and 36 such "u*lication #as &ade at

least thirt' 3;<6 da's "rior to the date o hearing.

n this case, "ri!ate res"ondents #ere a*le to sho# *oth ele&ents through

the certifcation o the Director o the -ational rinting Oce, a go!ern&ent ocial

#ho eno's the undis"uted "resu&"tion o regularit' in the "eror&ance o the

unctions o his oce. /e note that, on the other hand, &ere su*&ission o the

su*ect Ocial +aette issues #ould ha!e e!idenced onl' the frst ele&ent. $he

reliance on the Best =!idence Rule is erroneous. /hat &ust *e "ro!ed under 4ec.

1; R) -o. 2 is not the content o the order "u*lished in the O+ *ut the act o t#o>ti&e "u*lication in successi!e issues thereo at least ;< da's *eore the hearing

date.

 $his court has consistentl' acce"ted the "ro*ati!e !alue o certifcations o the

Director o the -ational rinting Oce in reconstitution cases.