When is there Evident Bad Faith?

In the case of Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 122166. March 11, 1998), the Honorable Supreme Court ruled that bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. (Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, 8 NE 2nd Series, 895, 1007). It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self interest or ill will for ulterior purposes (Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155, 166-167). Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.   Furthermore, this must be substantiated by evidence as the unbroken jurisprudence is that bad faith under the law cannot be presumed, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

Evident bad faith was illustrated in the case of Mejorada vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. L-51065-72 June 30, 1987).   The accused therein took advantage of his position as a right-of-way-agent by making the claimants sign the aforementioned agreements to demolish and sworn statements which contained falsified declarations of the value of the improvements and lots.   Honorable Supreme Court ruled that there was evident bad faith on the part of the accused  when he inflated the values of the true claims and then divested the claimants of a large share of the amounts due them.vi

Similarly, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled in the case of Deniega vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 109991 May 22, 1995) that there is evident bad faith when the accused therein already paid the contractor a total of P 650,000.00 out of the contract price of P 652, 562.60 when only 36.24% of the construction of the market has been completed.  In so doing, petitioners disregarded the provision in the contract that payment should be based on the percentage of work accomplishment. Moreover, the contract provided that in case of delay in the completion of the project, the contractor shall be liable for liquidated damages at the rate of 1/10 of 1% of the contract price per day of delay.

Lastly, there was also a finding of evident bad faith in the case of Asilo vs. People (G.R. Nos. 159017-18, March 9, 2011) when the accused therein demolished market stalls despite the fact that these were not considered public nuisance and where there is no legal order for its demolition.

On the other hand, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled that there can be no evident bad faith when the accused who is a an officer-in-charge of a government hospital removed the name of the private complainant from the plantilla and withheld her salary when the latter was found “moonlighting” (Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 84571 October 2, 1989).  In that case, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled that the actions taken by petitioner afore-stated were not entirely without rhyme or reason. They were measures taken by a superior against an erring employee who studiously ignored if not defied his authority.   In another case, it also ruled that mistake on a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith as long as it is not shown that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith (Daraug vs. Perez, CA-G.R. SP No. 87152, September 18, 2006).

From the above-cited cases, it can be said that a person can be considered in good faith where there is an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another (PNB vs. Heirs of Militar, G.R. No. 164801, June 30, 2006).   In the case of People vs. Ojeda (G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June 3, 2004), it was ruled that good faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a debtor’s offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor.   Any allegation of intent of malice or deceit can be rebutted by an extraordinary effort to pay complainant notwithstanding her own financial situation (People vs. Dimalanta, G.R. No. 157039, October 1, 2004).

Justice Artemio Panganiban on Graft and Corruption

Prefatory Statement

Time and time again, this Court has emphasized the need to stamp out graft and corruption in the government. Indeed, the tentacles of greed must be cut and the offenders punished. However, this objective can be accomplished only if the evidence presented by the prosecution passes the test of moral certainty. Where doubt lingers, as in this case, the Court is mandated to uphold the presumption of innocence guaranteed by our Constitution to the accused.

–   Justice Artemio G. Panganiban

Notes on Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

RULE 45

APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.

A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

(notes 1. Amended already by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC December 27, 2007,as follows:

RULE 45

SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.

Sec. 2. Time for filing; extension.

The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file the petition.

Notes:  1.) A.M. No. 04-7-03-SC

EN BANC

A.M. No. 04-7-03-SC

Re: Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure As Amended

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 13 2004.

Submitted for consideration of the Court is a Memorandum addressed to the Honorable Justice Reynato S. Puno, as Chairman, of the Second Division by Atty. Ludichi Yasay-Nunag, Clerk of Court of the said Division, relative to the motions for extension of time under Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, within which to file petition for review on certiorari which assails not only the judgment of the lower court or government agency but also the resolution of denial of the motion for reconsideration thereof. The Division Clerk of Court seeks authority to discontinue the policy of requiring a full statement of material dates in said motions for extension of time.

In reporting for the agenda of the Court, the Office of the Division Clerk of Court (DCC) states that it initially examines whether petitioners indicated in their motions the complete statement of material dates, i.e., the dates of receipt of the assailed judgment, filing of the motion for reconsideration, and receipt of the resolution of denial of the motion for reconsideration. In some instances where the motions merely stated the date of receipt of the resolution of denial and failed to state the dates of receipt of the assailed judgment and the filing of the motion for reconsideration, it notes that said omissions resulted in the denial of the motions for failure to show that petitioners have not lost the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period within which to appeal.

Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires, among others, that the petition shall indicate the material dates showing when notice of judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received. Such requirements, however, are not required in a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review under Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, and for a more effective delivery of justice, the Court hereby authorizes the Office of the Clerk of Court to include in its report of motions for extension of time to file petition only the date of receipt by petitioner of the denial/dismissal of the assailed decision and/or the denial of the motion for reconsideration, provided, however, that when a motion for extension of time to file petition is granted, it shall be counted from the expiration of the reglementary period and conditioned upon the timeliness of the filing of the motion.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

Sec. 3. Docket and other lawful fees; proof of service of petition.

Unless he has theretofore done so, the petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition. Proof of service of a copy thereof on the lower court concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted together with the petition.

Sec. 4. Contents of petition.

The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition; (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; and (e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42.

Notes:

1. Additional requirements.   

REVISED CIRCULAR NO. 28-91 February 8, 1994

TO: THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, ALL OTHER BAR ASSOCIATIONS, THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL REQUISITES FOR PETITIONS FILED WITH THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS TO PREVENT FORUM SHOPPING OR APPEALS TO PREVENT FORUM SHOPPING OR MULTIPLE FILING OF PETITIONS AND COMPLAINTS

The attention of the Court has been called to the filing of multiple petitions and the complaints involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals other tribunals or agencies, with the result that said courts, tribunals or agencies have to resolve the same issues.

1. To avoid the foregoing, in every petition filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, the petitioner, aside from complying with pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars, must certify under oath all of the following facts or undertakings: (a) he has not theretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agencies; (b) to the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; (c) if there is such other action or proceeding pending, he must state the status of the same; and (d) if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and such other tribunal or agency of that fact within five (5) days therefrom.

2. Any violation of this revised Circular will entail the following sanctions: (a) it shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of the multiple petitions or complaints; (b) any willful and deliberate forum shopping by any party and his counsel through the filing of multiple petitions or complaints to ensure favorable action shall constitute direct contempt of court; and (c) the submission of a false certification shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the filing of criminal action against the guilty party and the institution of disciplinary proceedings against the counsel.

This revised Circular shall take effect on April 1, 1994.

February 8, 1994.

Sec. 5. Dismissal or denial of petition.

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the petition on the ground that the appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.

Sec. 6. Review discretionary.

A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:
(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or

(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.

Sec. 7. Pleadings and documents that may be required; sanctions.

For purposes of determining whether the petition should be dismissed or denied pursuant to section 5 of this Rule, or where the petition is given due course under section 8 hereof, the Supreme Court may require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it may deem necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it may consider appropriate, and impose the corresponding sanctions in case of non-filing or unauthorized filing of such pleadings and documents or non-compliance with the conditions therefor.chan robles virtual law library

Sec. 8. Due course; elevation of records.

If the petition is given due course, the Supreme Court may require the elevation of the complete record of the case or specified parts thereof within fifteen (15) days from notice.

Sec. 9. Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases.

The mode of appeal prescribed in this Rule shall be applicable to both civil and criminal cases, except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

Other requirements:

TO:  ALL MEMBERS OF THE BAR

SUBJECT:  IMPLEMENTATION OF SEC. 12, ART. XVIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND COMPLEMENTING ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 1 OF JANUARY 28, 1988 ON EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSITION OF CASES PENDING IN THE SUPREME COURT.  
 
Considering the provisions of Section 12, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution mandating the adoption of a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending in the Supreme Court and complementing further the Court’s Resolution of April 7, 1988 implementing Administrative Circular No. 1 of January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court, effective January 1, 1989, will entertain only petitions that comply strictly with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court, more particularly the following:

(1) Payment of docketing and other fees. – Section 1 of Rule 45 requires that petitions for review be filed and the required fees paid within the prescribed period. Unless exempted by law or rule, such fees must be fully paid in accordance with this Circular; otherwise, the Court may deny the petition outright. The same rule shall govern petitions under Rule 65.
(a) When the petition is filed within the prescribed or reglementary period, the docket and other legal fees must be fully paid at the time of the filing of the petition.

(b) If the petitioner files a motion for extension of time to file the petition and to pay the docket and other legal fees, and the motion is granted, said docket and other legal fees must be fully paid on or before the expiration of the extension granted.

(c) If the petitioner files only a motion for extension of time to file the petition for review on certiorari, the docket and other legal fees must be fully paid upon the filing of said motion foe extension.
 
The filing fees under Rule 141, as amended, 189 SCRA, pp. xiv-xxiii. Rule 141, as amended, was published in full in the “Manila Bulletin” on September 19, 1990, are as follows:
 

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI 
Under Rule 45

Docket Fee P 48.00
Docket Fee (Judiciary Fund) 352.00
Legal Research Fund Fee 20.00
TOTAL P420.00
 
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION 
Under Rule 65
 
Docket Fee P 48.00
Docket Fee (Judiciary Fund) 352.00
Legal Research Fund Fee 20.00
Deposit for Sheriff’s Fee 200.00
Clerk’s Commission 2.00
TOTAL P622.00
 

If a restraining order is prayed for in connection with the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Sheriff’s fee and Clerk’s Commission prescribed for special civil actions under Rule 65 in the aggregate amount of P202.00 shall also be deposited.

(d) Where several cases were consolidated, treated together, and disposed of in only one decision in the proceedings a quo, such cases shall be treated as one case and the filing fees for the equivalent of only one case shall be assessed and collected for said consolidated judgment appealed from, despite the number of cases covered by the appeal or petition.

(2) Form and Service of Petition.  – A petition filed under Rule 45 or under Rule 65, or in a motion for extension may be denied outright if it is not clearly legible, or there is no proof of service on the lower court, tribunal, or office concerned and on the adverse party in accordance with Sections 3, 5 and 10 of Rule 13, attached to the petition or motion for extension when filed.

(3) Copies of judgment or resolution sought to be reviewed.– Petitions filed with the Supreme Court, whether under Rule 45, Rule 65, R.A. No. 5440 or P.D. No. 1606 shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the decision, judgment, resolution or order subject thereof, and the requisite number of plain copies thereof. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper Clerk of Court or by his duly authorized representative or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, board, commission, or office involved, or by his duly authorized representative. Certification by the parties themselves, their counsel or any other person shall not be allowed.

(4) Verified statement of material dates. – A petition shall in all cases contain a verified statement of the date wen notice of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for reconsideration, if any, was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received; otherwise, the petition may be dismissed.

(5) Effect of subsequent compliance. – Subsequent compliance with the above requirements will not warrant reconsideration of the order of dismissal unless it be shown that such non-compliance was due to compelling reasons.

(6) Pleadings and papers filed. – Pursuant to the Court’s Resolution of February 23, 1984, all pleadings, briefs, memoranda, motions, and other papers to be filed before the Supreme Court shall either be typewritten, double spaced or printed on good quality unglazed paper, or mimeographed or printed on newsprint or brown mimeograph paper.

Eighteen (18) legible copies of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda, motions, and other papers shall be filed in cases foe consideration of the Court en banc and nine (9) copies in cases to be heard before a division. Only two (2) copies thereof shall be served upon each of the adverse parties in either case.

No action shall be taken on such pleadings, briefs, memoranda, motions and other papers as fail to comply with the requisites set out in this paragraph.

Effectivity of amendments. – The amendments hereby incorporated shall take effect on July 1, 1991.

 
 

[Sgd.] MARCELO B. FERNANChief Justice

Amendment to Rule 45 (A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC December 4, 2007)

RULE 45

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.  A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.

Sample Legal Form: Affidavit of Service (Rule 45 and 65)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) City/Municipality_______________) Province_____________________) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I,______________________________________ as, ____________________________ (relation to party or counsel) of, ___________________________________________________ with office address at ______________________________________________, after being duly sworn, depose and say: That on ______________________________, 198_____ I served a copy of the following Date Pleading/paper by ordinary/registered mail in accordance with Sections 3 and 5 in relation to Section 10 of Rule 13, Rules of Court: Nature of Pleading/Paper ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ In case No. ______________________________________________________ entitled Depositing a copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his attorney at his office/ residence with postage fully prepaid, as evidenced (in case of registered mail) by Registry Receipt No. ________________ hereto attached, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days, if undelivered. That the addressee(s) is/are as follows: ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ __________________ Manila, Philippines. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______ day of Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his/her Residence Certificate No. ______________, issued at__________ on ___________________. Officer Administering the Oath.

Interpretation of Art 1673 in relation to the Rent Control Law

Question:  Does a lease contract which ends on a monthly basis affected by the Rent Control Act?

No.  This issue was settled in the case of De Vera vs. Court of Appeals, 

G.R. No. 110297 August 7, 1996:

First. The issue in this case is whether the oral contract of lease was on a month-to-month basis which is terminated at the end of every month. We hold that it is. We have already ruled in a number of cases ⁵ that a lease on a month-to-month basis is, under Art. 1687, a lease with a definite period, upon the expiration of which upon demand made by the lessor on the lessee to vacate, the ejectment of the lessee may be ordered.

Art. 1687 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1687. If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily. However, even though a monthly rent is paid, and no period for the lease has been set, the Courts may fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupied the premises for over one year. If the rent is weekly, the Courts may likewise determine a longer period after the lessee has been in possession for over six months. In case of daily rent, the courts may also fix a longer period after the lessee has stayed in the place for over one month.

This provision has not been affected by the suspension in §6 of B.P. Blg. 877 which provides:

§6. Application of the Civil Code and Rules of Court of the Philippines. — Except when the lease is for a definite period, the provisions of paragraph (1) of Article 1673 of the Civil code of the Philippines, in so far as they refer to residential units covered by this Act, shall be suspended during the effectivity of this Act, but other provisions of the Civil Code and the Rules of Court on lease contracts, in so far as they are not in conflict with the provisions of this Act shall apply.

 

Thus, what has been suspended by the Rent Control Law (§6 of B.P. Blg. 877, formerly §6 of B.P. Blg. 25) is Art. 1673 and not Art. 1687 of the Civil Code. The effect of the suspension on Art. 1687 is only that the lessor cannot eject the tenant by reason alone of the expiration of the period of lease as provided in said Art. 1687. Otherwise, Art. 1687 itself has not been suspended. Hence, it can be used to determine the period of a lease agreement. ⁶

Jurisdictional Requirements of a Complaint for Illegal detainer

In the case of  Cabrera v. Getaruela, G.R. No. 164213, April 21, 2009, 586 SCRA 129, 136-137, the Supreme Court rules that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following: (1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

Contents of a Petition for Reconstitution of Lost Title

> Contents shall be as followed—
1. That the owner’s duplicate had been lost or destroyed
2. That no co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, lessee’s, duplicate had been issued or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed
3. The location, area and boundaries of the property
4. The nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which don’t belong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements
5. The names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and all persons who may have any interest in the property
6. A detailed description of the encumbrances if any, affecting the property
7. A statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting the property have been presented for registration, or if there be any, the registration thereof hasn’t been accomplished, as yet

Administrative Reconstitution of Lost Title

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6732

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6732  – AN ACT ALLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF ORIGINAL COPIES OF CERTIFICATES OF TITLES LOST OR DESTROYED DUE TO FIRE, FLOOD AND OTHER FORCE MAJEURE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION ONE HUNDRED TEN OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBERED FIFTEEN TWENTY-NINE AND SECTION FIVE OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED TWENTY-SIX

SECTION 1.    Section 110 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“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 to administrative 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 due to fire, flood or other force majeure as 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.”

SECTION 2.    For the purpose of the preceding section, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 26 is hereby revived and amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 5.    Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a,) and 3(b) of this Act may be filed with the Register of Deeds concerned by the registered owner, his assigns, or other person, both natural and juridical, having an interest in the property. The petition shall be accompanied with the necessary sources for reconstitution and with an affidavit of the registered owner stating, among other things:

“(1)    That no deed or other instrument affecting the property had been presented for registration, or, if there be any, the nature thereof, the date of its presentation, as well as the names of the parties, and whether the registration of such deed or instrument is still pending accomplishment;

“(2)    That the owner’s duplicate certificate or co-owner’s duplicate is in due form without any apparent intentional alterations or erasures;

“(3)    That the certificate of title is not the subject of litigation or investigation, administrative or judicial, regarding its genuineness or due execution or issuance;

“(4)    That the certificate of title was in full force and effect at the time it was lost or destroyed;

“(5)    That the certificate of title is covered by a tax declaration regularly issued by the Assessor’s Office; and

“(6)    That real estate taxes have been fully paid up to at least two (2) years prior to the filing of the petition for reconstitution.

“If the reconstitution is to be made from any of the sources enumerated in Section 2(b) or 3(b), the affidavit should further state that the owner’s duplicate has been lost or destroyed and the circumstances under which it was lost or destroyed. Thereupon, the Register of Deeds shall, no valid reason to the contrary existing, reconstitute the certificate of title as provided in this Act.”

SECTION 3.    Immediately after the loss or destruction of titles mentioned in Section 2 hereof, a true, complete and faithful inventory of all books, titles, documents, cash and property in the Registry of Deeds concerned shall be prepared by the Land Registration Authority through the newly designated reconstituting officer or Register of Deeds. Said inventory, duly signed and certified under oath by the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority, shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province or city where the loss or destruction of titles occurred.

SECTION 4.    All reconstituted titles shall be reproduced by the Land Registration Authority in at least three image copies or in whatever means by which the original can be reproduced, one copy to be kept by the Land Registration Authority, the second copy to be kept by the National Library Archives Division, and the third copy to be secured in a government fire-proof vault, preferably in the Security Printing Plant of the Central Bank. Such image copy of the original copy of the reconstituted title shall be considered after due authentication by the Land Registration Authority, through the Register of Deeds in the province or city where the land is located, as a duplicate original, and as an authorized source or basis for reconstitution together with the sources enumerated in Section 2 and 3 of Republic Act No. 26.

SECTION 5.    After reconstitution, said owner’s duplicate or co-owner’s duplicate exhibited as basis for the reconstitution shall be surrendered to the Register of Deeds and a new certificate of title issued in lieu thereof, the original of which shall be kept by the Register of Deeds and the owners duplicate delivered to the registered owner.

SECTION 6.    Section 6 of Republic Act No. 26 is hereby declared inoperative.

SECTION 7.    Section 19 of Republic Act No. 26 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 19.    If the certificate of title considered lost or destroyed, and subsequently found or recovered, is not in the name of the same person in whose favor the reconstituted certificate of title has been issued, the Register of Deeds or the party concerned should bring the matter to the attention of the proper regional trial court, which, after due notice and hearing, shall order the cancellation of the reconstituted certificate of title and render, with respect to the memoranda of new liens and encumbrances, if any, made in the reconstituted certificate of title, after its reconstitution, such judgment as justice and equity may require: provided, however, that if the reconstituted certificate of title has been cancelled by virtue of any deed or instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, or by an order of the court, and a new certificate of title has been issued, the procedure prescribed above, with respect to the memorandum of new liens and encumbrances made on the reconstituted certificate of title, after its reconstitution, shall be followed with respect to the new certificate of title, and to such new liens and encumbrances, if any, as may have been on the latter, after the issuance thereof.”

SECTION 8.    The Administrator of the Land Registration Authority, with the approval of the Secretary of Justice, shall issue rules, regulations, and circulars as may be necessary and appropriate to implement this Act, including but not limited to the following:

(1)    The temporary designation of a reconstituting officer or another Register of Deeds;

(2)    The submission of monthly periodic status reports on reconstitution proceedings and reconstituted titles to the Secretary of Justice and the governor or city mayor concerned; and

(3)    The immediate reporting by the reconstituting officer or Register of Deeds to the Secretary of Justice and the governor or city mayor concerned on any verified complaint presented to him.

SECTION 9.    The Land Registration Authority Administrator may review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm any decision of the reconstituting officer or Register of Deeds. Any appeal shall be filed within fifteen days from the receipt of the judgment or order by the aggrieved party.

SECTION 10.    Any interested party who by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence has been unjustly deprived or prevented from taking part in the proceedings may file a petition in the proper court to set aside the decision and to reopen the proceedings. The petition shall be verified and must be filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the decision but not more than six months from the promulgation thereof.

SECTION 11.    A reconstituted title obtained by means of fraud, deceit or other machination is void ab initio as against the party obtaining the same and all persons having knowledge thereof.

SECTION 12.    Any person who by means of fraud, deceit or other machination obtains or attempts to obtain a reconstituted title shall be subject to criminal prosecution and, upon conviction, shall be liable for imprisonment for a period of not less than two years but not exceeding five years or the payment of a fine of not less than Twenty thousand pesos but not exceeding Two hundred thousand pesos or both at the discretion of the court.

Any public officer or employee who knowingly approves or assists in securing a decision allowing reconstitution in favor of any person not entitled thereto shall be subject to criminal prosecution and, upon conviction, shall be liable for imprisonment of not less than five years but not exceeding ten years or payment of a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos but not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos or both at the discretion of the court and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

SECTION 13.    All acts, laws, decrees, executive orders, or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 14.     This Act shall likewise cover administrative reconstitution of copies of original certificates of titles destroyed by fire, flood or other force majeure within a period of fifteen years before the effectivity of this Act.

SECTION 15.    This Act shall take effect upon its publication in three newspapers of general circulation.

Approved: July 17, 1989

Provincial Governors have no authority to issue Small Scale Mining Permits

In the case of Calanza vs. PICOP (G.R. No. 146622, April 24, 2009), it was ruled:

 

PROVINCIAL GOVERNORS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SMALL SCALE MINING PERMITS

 

Under Presidential Decree No. 1899, applications of small-scale miners are processed with the Director of the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7076, which took effect¹⁰ on 18 July 1991, approval of the applications for mining permits and for mining contracts are vested in the Provincial/City Mining Regulatory Board. Composed of the DENR representative, a representative from the small-scale mining sector, a representative from the big-scale mining industry and a representative from an environmental group, this body is tasked to approve small-scale mining permits and contracts.

In the case under consideration, petitioners filed their small-scale mining permits on 23 August 1991, making them bound by the procedures provided for under the applicable and prevailing statute, Republic Act No. 7076. Instead of processing and obtaining their permits from the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board, petitioners were able to get the same from the governor of Davao del Norte. Considering that the governor is without legal authority to issue said mining permits, the same permits are null and void.