Dionisia Icong and her children named Filemon, Manuel, Arsenio, and Napoleon, all surnamed Ompad, filed with the CFI of Cebu a petition for the reconstitution of the original certificate of title covering Lot 1660 of the Opon Cadastre in the name of “Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong, spouses,” and once reconstituted, to cancel the same and another one issued in the name of “Filemon Ompad…; Manuel Ompad…; Arsenio Ompad…; Napoleon Ompad…; and Dionisia Icong, surviving spouse of Antonio Ompad….
The petition was opposed by Espiritu Bunagan, upon the ground that he is the owner of the lot in question; and that Dionisia Icong is merely a trustee of the lot in behalf of Antonio Ompad.
Later, petitioners Icong and children moved to dismiss the opposition.
The cadastral court then ruled that it could not entertain the claim of the oppositor which should be ventilated in an ordinary civil action, and gave due course to the petition. After hearing, the court issued an order, dated June 17, 1967, ordering the reconstitution of the original certificate of title of Lot No. 1660…in the names of the original owners — spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong…
Thereafter, Original Certificate of Title No. RO-0675 was issued in the name of “spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong.”
Espiritu Bunagan then filed an urgent motion to correct the order of June 17, 1967 and the original certificate of title No. RO-9675, by substituting, as the registered owners of Lot 1660 “Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Incong” instead of “spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong” upon the ground that upon the evidence presented, the lot was adjudicated to “Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong” during the cadastral proceedings, and not to spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong.
Dionisia Icong filed her opposition thereto claiming that the issuance of the certificate of title in the name of “spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong” is warranted under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act which authorizes alteration or amendment of the title upon proper petition.
Sometime thereafter, the respondent Court issued an order, denying the motion to correct the order of June 17, 1967.
Hence, this instant recourse to annul and set aside the said orders.
Whether or not the court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of the reconstituted title in the name of “Spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong” instead of “Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong” as reflected in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
Firstly, the reconstitution or reconstruction of a certificate of title literally and within the meaning of Republic Act No. 26 denotes restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. The purpose of the reconstitution of any document, book or record is to have the same reproduced, after observing the procedure prescribed by law, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occured. If the certificate of title covering the lot was decreed in the form of “Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong,” as in this case, the reconstituted certificate of title should likewise be in the name of the owners as they appeared in the lost or destroyed certificate of title sought to be reconstituted. Any change that should be made in the ownership of the property should be the subject of a separate suit.
Secondly, the claim of Dionisia Icong that the change is authorized under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act is without merit. The proceedings authorized in Section 112 could not be availed of in view of the opposition of the herein petitioners, for such proceedings apply only if there is unanimity among the parties or there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest.