Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 185604 June 13, 2013
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
EDWARD M. CAMACHO, Respondent.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before this Court is a petition1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking the reversal of the
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87390, which
affirmed the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Villasis,
Pangasinan, Branch 50 in Land Registration Case No. V -0016.
The facts follow.
On March 6, 2003, respondent Edward M. Camacho filed a petition 4
denominated as "Re: Petition for Reconstitution of the Original Title of
O.C.T. No. (not legible) and Issuance of Owner's Duplicate Copy" before
the RTC.
In support thereof, respondent alleged that the Original Certificate of Title 5
(OCT) sought to be reconstituted and whose number is no longer legible
due to wear and tear, is covered by Decree No. 444263, Case No. 3732,
Record No. 221416 issued in the name of Spouses Nicasio Lapitan and Ana
Doliente (Spouses Lapitan) of Alcala, Pangasinan. Respondent also
alleged that the owners duplicate copy of the OCT is in his possession and
that he is the owner of the two parcels of land covered by the
aforementioned OCT by virtue of a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition with
Absolute Sale7 (the Deed) executed on December 26, 2002 by the heirs of
Spouses Lapitan in his favor. Said OCT covers two parcels of land located
in San Juan, Alcala, Pangasinan, (Lot No. 1) and Namulatan, 8 Bautista,
Pangasinan (Lot No. 2) with the following technical descriptions:
A parcel of land (Lot No. 1, plan Psu- 53673), situated in the Barrio of San
Juan, Municipality of Alcala. Bounded on the NE. by property of Benito
Ferrer; on the S. by an irrigation ditch and property of Marcelo Monegas;
and on the W. by Lot No. 2. Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan, being
S. 0 deg. 53 W., 3830.91 m. from B. L. L. M. No. 1, Alcala; thence S. 87
deg. 22 W., 44.91 m. to point "2"; thence N. 5 deg. 25 W., 214.83 m. to
point "3"; thence S. 17 deg. 06 E., 221.61 m. to the point of beginning;
containing an area of four thousand eight hundred and eighteen square
meters (4,818), more or less. All points referred to are indicated on the plan
and on the ground are marked by old P. L. S. concrete monuments;
bearings true; declination 0 deg. 40 E.; date of survey, April 19-21, 1926;
and
A parcel of land (Lot No. 2, plan Psu-53673), situated in the Barrio of
Namulatan, Municipality of Bautista. Bounded on the N. by properties of
Hipolito Sarmiento and Ciriaco Dauz; on the E. by Lot No.1; and on the
SW. by property of Nicasio Lapitan vs. Felix Bacolor. Beginning at a point
marked "1" on plan, being S. 2 deg. 40 W., 3625.25 m. from B. L. L. M. No.
1, Alcala; thence N. 80 deg. 47 E., 3.50 m. to point "2"; thence N. 86 deg.
53 E., 40.64 m. to point "3"; thence S. 5 deg. 25 E., 214.83 m. to point "4";
thence N. 16 deg. 57 W., 220.69 m. to the point of beginning; containing an
area of four thousand seven hundred and fortyfour square meters (4,744),
more or less. All points referred to are indicated on the plan and on the
ground are marked by old P. L. S. concrete monuments; bearings true;
declination 0 deg. 40 E.; date of survey April 19-21, 1926. 9
Respondent attached to his petition photocopies of the Deed; the OCT; Tax
Declaration No. 485810; a Certification11 dated January 13, 2003 issued by
the Office of the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan stating that
the file copy of the OCT could not be found and is considered lost and
beyond recovery; and Decree No. 444263.12
Upon a Show-Cause Order13 of the RTC, respondent filed an Amended
Petition14 dated May 21, 2003, alleging that the subject properties bear no
encumbrance; that there are no improvements therein; that there are no
other occupants thereof aside from respondent; and that there are no
deeds or instruments affecting the same that had been presented for
registration. He further alleged that "the land in issue is bounded on the
North by the land covered by Plan Psu-53673; on the North by the
properties of Hipolito Sarmiento and Cipriano Dauz, 15 residents of Anulid,
Alcala, Pangasinan; on the West by Lot No. 3; and on the Southwest by the
properties of Nicasio Lapitan vs. Felix Bacolor who are also residents of
Anulid, Alcala, Pangasinan."16 Respodent intimated that he desires to have
the office/file copy of the OCT reconstituted based on the Technical
Description provided by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office
and thereafter, to be issued a second owners duplicate copy in lieu of the
old one.
On May 30, 2003, the RTC issued an Order17 finding the respondents
petition sufficient in form and substance and setting the same for hearing
on September 29, 2003. The said Order is herein faithfully reproduced as
follows:
ORDER
In a verified petition, petitioner Edward Camacho, as vendee of the parcels
of land located in San Juan, Alcala, Pangasinan, and Namulatan, Bautista,
Pangasinan, covered by Decree No. 444263, Case No. 3732, G.L.R.O. No.
22141, formerly issued in the names of spouses Nicasio Lapitan and Ana
Doliente, of Alcala, Pangasinan, under an Original Certificate of Title the
number of which is not legible due to wear and tear, seeks an order
directing the proper authorities and the Registrar of Deeds, Lingayen,
Pangasinan, to reconstitute the office file copy of said Original Certificate of
Title based on the technical description thereof and to issue a second
owners duplicate copy of the same in lieu of the old one.
Being sufficient in form and substance, the petition is set for hearing on
September 29, 2003, at 8:30 in the morning, before this Court, on which
date, time and place, all interested persons are enjoined to appear and
show cause why the same should not be granted.
Let this order be published twice in successive issues of the Official
Gazette at the expense of the petitioner.
Likewise, let copies of this Order and of the Amended Petition be posted in
conspicuous places in the Provincial Capitol and the Registry of Deeds,
both in Lingayen, Pangasinan, the Municipal Halls of Alcala and Bautista,
Pangasinan, and the Barangay Halls of San Juan, Alcala, Pangasinan and
Namulatan, Bautista, Pangasinan, and the Office of the Solicitor General,
Manila.
Finally, furnish copies of this Order, by registered mail, at the expense of
the petitioner, to the following:
1. Hipolito Sarmiento;
2. Cipriano Dauz;
3. Nicasio Lapitan; and
4. Felix Bacolor.
all of Brgy. Anulid, Alcala, Pangasinan.
SO ORDERED.18
Thereafter, copies of the said order were posted on seven bulletin boards:
at the Pangasinan Provincial Capitol Building, at the Alcala and Bautista
Municipal Buildings, at the San Juan and Namulatan Barangay Halls, at the
office of the Register of Deeds in Lingayen, Pangasinan and at the RTC. 19
The order was also published twice in the Official Gazette: on August 18,
2003 (Volume 99, Number 33, Page 5206), and on August 25, 2003
(Volume 99, Number 34, Page 5376).20
However, on January 22, 2004, respondent filed his second Amended
Petition21 averring that "the land in issue is bounded on the North by the
land of Ricardo Acosta, a resident of Laoac, Alcala, Pangasinan; on the
South by the property of Greg Viray,22 a resident of Laoac, Alcala,
Pangasinan; on the West by the land of Roque Lanuza, 23 a resident of
Laoac, Alcala, Pangasinan; and on the East by the lot of Juan Cabuan, 24 a
resident of Laoac, Alcala, Pangasinan."25 On March 4, 2004, respondent
filed a Motion26 with Leave of Court to admit his second Amended Petition,
which the RTC granted in its Order27 dated March 4, 2004, directing therein
that the persons mentioned in the second Amended Petition be notified by
registered mail.
During the hearing, the following witnesses were presented: (1)
respondent28 who, among others, presented the original owners duplicate
copy of the OCT before the RTC;29 (2) the tenant of the adjoining lot
(Western portion) Roque Lanuza who testified that he tilled the adjoining
lots, that he has personal knowledge that respondent bought said lots from
the heirs of the Spouses Lapitan, and that he was present when the lots
were surveyed;30 (3) adjoining owners Gregorio Viray31 and Ricardo Acosta32
who testified that they were notified of the proceedings and interposed no
objection to the petition; and (4) Arthur David (Mr. David), Records
Custodian of the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan who testified
that Atty. Rufino Moreno, Jr., Registrar of Deeds had issued the
Certification that the OCT subject of the petition can no longer be found in
the Office of the Register of Deeds.33 In his subsequent testimony, Mr.
David reported to the RTC that the name of Nicasio Lapitan cannot be
located in the Index Cards of titles as some are missing and destroyed.
Upon questioning, Mr. David testified that the number of the OCT sought to
be reconstituted may be referred to in the decree issued in the name of
Nicasio Lapitan which allegedly could be found in the Land Registration
Authority (LRA).34
On May 23, 2005, the LRA rendered a Report35 addressed to the RTC
which pertinently stated, to wit:
(1) The present amended petition seeks the reconstitution of Original
Certificate of Title No. (not legible), allegedly lost or destroyed and
supposedly covering Lot Nos. 1 and 2 of plan Psu-53673, situated in the
Barrio of San Juan, Municipality of Alcala and Barrio of Namulatan,
Municipality of Bautista, respectively, Province of Pangasinan, on the basis
of the owners duplicate thereof, a reproduction of which, duly certified by
Atty. Stela Marie Q. Gandia-Asuncion, Clerk of Court VI, was submitted to
this Authority;
(2) Our records show that Decree No. 444263 was issued on July 18, 1931
covering Lot Nos. 1 and 2 of plan Psu-53673, in Cadastral Case No. 3732,
GLRO Record No. 22141 in favor of the Spouses Nicasio Lapitan and Ana
Doliente;
(3) The technical descriptions of Lot Nos. 1 and 2 of plan Psu-53673,
appearing on the reproduction of Original Certificate of Title No. (not
legible) were found correct after examination and due computation and
when plotted in the Municipal Index Sheet No. 451/1027, do not appear to
overlap previously plotted/decreed properties in the area.
The government prosecutor deputized by the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG)36 participated in the trial of the case but did not present controverting
evidence.37
On March 9, 2006, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision, 38 the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court, finding the documentary as well as the parole
(sic) evidence adduced to be adequate and sufficiently persuasive to
warrant the reconstitution of the Original Certificate of Title covered by
Decree No. 444263, Cadastral Case No. 3732, GLRO Record No. 22141,
and pursuant to Section 110, PD No. 1529 and Sections 2 (d) and 15 of RA
No. 26, hereby directs the Register of Deeds at Lingayen, Pangasinan, to
reconstitute said original certificate of title on the basis of the decree of
registration thereof, without prejudice to the annotation of any subsisting
rights or interests not duly noted in these proceedings, if any, and the right
of the Administrator, Land Registration Authority, as provided for in Sec. 16,
Land Registration Commission (now NALTDRA) Circular No. 35, dated
June 13, 1983, and to issue a new owner's duplicate copy thereof.
SO ORDERED.39
On April 4, 2006, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG,
filed a Motion for Reconsideration40 which was denied by the RTC in its
Resolution41 dated May 24, 2006 for lack of merit. The RTC opined that
while the number of the OCT is not legible, a close examination of the
entries therein reveals that it is an authentic OCT per the LRAs findings.
Moreover, the RTC held that respondent complied with Section 2 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 2642 considering that the reconstitution in this case
is based on the owners duplicate copy of the OCT.
Petitioner appealed to the CA.43 By Decision44 dated July 31, 2008, the CA
affirmed the RTCs findings and ruling, holding that respondents petition is
governed by Section 10 of R.A. No. 26 since the reconstitution proceedings
is based on the owners duplicate copy of the OCT itself. The CA, invoking
this Courts ruling in Puzon v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., 45
concluded that notice to the owners of the adjoining lots is not required.
Moreover, the CA opined that Decree No. 444263 issued on July 18, 1931
covering Lot Nos. 1 and 2 in the name of Spouses Lapitan exists in the
Record Book of the LRA as stated in the LRAs Report. The CA ratiocinated
that the LRAs Report on said Decree tallies with the subject OCT leading
to no other conclusion than that these documents cover the same subject
lots. Petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration 46 which the CA, however,
denied in its Resolution47 dated November 20, 2008.
Hence, this petition based on the following grounds, to wit:
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE TRIAL
COURT CORRECTLY GRANTED THE PETITION FOR
RECONSTITUTION EVEN IF THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OFTITLE
NUMBER IS NOT LEGIBLE; and
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE TRIAL
COURT CORRECTLY GRANTED THE PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
A SECOND OWNERS DUPLICATE.48
Petitioner through the OSG avers that respondent does not have any basis
for reconstitution because the OCT per se is of doubtful existence, as
respondent himself does not know its number. According to the OSG, this
fact alone negates the merits of the petition for reconstitution as held by
this Court in Tahanan Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al. 49
Moreover, the OSG highlights that the Deed, the tax declaration for the
year 2003, and the Register of Deeds Certification all indicated that the
number of the OCT is not legible. The OSG also stresses that nowhere in
the records did the LRA acknowledge that it has on file the original copy of
Decree No. 444263 from which the alleged OCT was issued and that said
Decree did not at all establish the existence and previous issuance of the
OCT sought to be reconstituted. The OSG notes that the RTC erred, as
found in the dispositive portion of its decision, in basing the reconstitution of
the OCT under Section 2(d) of R.A. No. 26. Finally, the OSG submits that
respondent cannot seek the issuance of the second owners duplicate of
the OCT because he himself alleged in his own petition that he is in
possession of the same owners duplicate certificate. 50
On the other hand, respondent counters that the OSGs reliance in
Tahanan and Republic of the Phils. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 51 is
unavailing. He argues that in Tahanan, the petitioner therein merely relied
on documents other than the owners duplicate copy of the certificate of
title, while in Republic, this Court ruled that reconstitution cannot be based
on statutes which do not confer title over the property. Respondent claims
that in these aforementioned cases, petitioners therein do not have other
sources to support their respective petitions for reconstitution while in this
case the owners duplicate copy of the OCT sought to be reconstituted truly
exists albeit its number is not legible. Respondent submits that the
documentary as well as the parol evidence he adduced are adequate to
warrant the reconstitution of the OCT as it is covered by Decree No.
444263. Respondent also submits that since there is a valid title in this
case, there is legal basis for the issuance of the owners duplicate copy of
the reconstituted title.52
Notwithstanding the numerous contentions raised by both parties, this
Court finds that the fundamental issue to be resolved in this case is
whether the RTC properly acquired and was invested with jurisdiction in the
first place to hear and decide Land Registration Case No. V-0016 in the
light of the strict and mandatory provisions of R.A. No. 26.
We resolve the sole issue in the negative.
Section 11053 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the
Property Registration Decree, as amended by R.A. No. 6732, 54 allows the
reconstitution of lost or destroyed original Torrens title either judicially, in
accordance with the special procedure laid down in R.A. No. 26, or
administratively, in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6732. 55
As the case set before this Court is one for judicial reconstitution, we limit
the discussion to the pertinent law, which is R.A. No. 26, and the applicable
jurisprudence.
The nature of the proceeding for reconstitution of a certificate of title under
R.A. No. 26 denotes a restoration of the instrument, which is supposed to
have been lost or destroyed, in its original form and condition. The purpose
of such a proceeding is merely to have the certificate of title reproduced,
after proper proceedings, in the same form it was in when its loss or
destruction occurred. The same R.A. No. 26 specifies the requisites to be
met for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution
of a certificate of title. Failure to comply with any of these jurisdictional
requirements for a petition for reconstitution renders the proceedings null
and void. Thus, in obtaining a new title in lieu of the lost or destroyed one,
R.A. No. 26 laid down procedures which must be strictly followed in view of
the danger that reconstitution could be the source of anomalous titles or
unscrupulously availed of as an easy substitute for original registration of
title proceedings.56
It bears reiterating that respondents quest for judicial reconstitution in this
case is anchored on the owners duplicate copy of said OCT a source for
reconstitution of title provided under Section 2 (a) of R.A. No. 26, which
provides in full as follows:
SEC. 2. Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the
sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
a. The owners duplicate of the certificate of title;
b. The co-owners, mortgagees, or lessees duplicate of the certificate of
title;
c. A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register
of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
d. An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case
may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued;
e. A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the
description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or
encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its
original had been registered; and
f. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and
proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
(Emphasis supplied.)
In this aspect, the CA was correct in invoking our ruling in Puzon v. Sta.
Lucia Realty and Development, Inc.,57 that notices to owners of adjoining
lots and actual occupants of the subject property are not mandatory and
jurisdictional in a petition for judicial reconstitution of destroyed certificate of
title when the source for such reconstitution is the owners duplicate copy
thereof since the publication, posting and notice requirements for such a
petition are governed by Section 10 in relation to Section 9 of R.A. No. 26.
Section 10 provides:
SEC. 10. Nothing hereinbefore provided shall prevent any registered owner
or person in interest from filing the petition mentioned in section five of this
Act directly with the proper Court of First Instance, based on sources
enumerated in sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and/or 4(a) of this Act:
Provided, however, That the court shall cause a notice of the petition,
before hearing and granting the same, to be published in the manner stated
in section nine hereof: And, provided, further, That certificates of title
reconstituted pursuant to this section shall not be subject to the
encumbrance referred to in section seven of this Act. (Emphasis supplied.)
Correlatively, the pertinent provisions of Section 9 on the publication,
posting and the contents of the notice of the Petition for Reconstitution
clearly mandate:
SEC. 9. x x x 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. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
In sum, Section 10, in relation to Section 9, requires that 30 days before the
date of hearing, (1) a notice be published in two successive issues of the
Official Gazette at the expense of the petitioner, and that (2) such notice be
posted at the main entrances of the provincial building and of the municipal
hall where the property is located. The notice shall state the following: (1)
the number of the certificate of title, (2) the name of the registered owner,
(3) the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted
certificate of title, (4) the location of the property, and (5) the date on which
all persons having an interest in the property, must appear and file such
claims as they may have.58
Verily, while the CA invoked the appropriate provisions of R.A. No. 26, it
failed, however, to take note that Section 9 thereof mandatorily requires
that the notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the
certificate of title and the names of the interested parties appearing in the
reconstituted certificate of title. In this case, the RTC failed to indicate these
jurisdictional facts in the notice.
First. The Notice of Hearing issued and published does not align with the in
rem character of the reconstitution proceedings and the mandatory nature
of the requirements under R.A. No. 26.59 There is a mortal insufficiency in
the publication when the missing title was merely identified as "OCT No.
(not legible)" which is non-compliant with Section 9 of R.A. No. 26.
Moreover, while the LRA confirmed the issuance of Decree No. 444263 in
its Report, it perplexes this Court that the LRA failed to state that an OCT
was actually issued and mention the number of the OCT sought to be
reconstituted. In Republic of the Phils. v. El Gobierno De Las Islas
Filipinas,60 this Court denied the petition for reconstitution of title despite the
existence of a decree:
We also find insufficient the index of decree showing that Decree No.
365835 was issued for Lot No. 1499, as a basis for reconstitution. We
noticed that the name of the applicant as well as the date of the issuance of
such decree was illegible. While Decree No. 365835 existed in the Record
Book of Cadastral Lots in the Land Registration Authority as stated in the
Report submitted by it, however, the same report did not state the number
of the original certificate of title, which is not sufficient evidence in support
of the petition for reconstitution. The deed of extrajudicial declaration of
heirs with sale executed by Aguinaldo and Restituto Tumulak Perez and
respondent on February 12, 1979 did not also mention the number of the
original certificate of title but only Tax Declaration No. 00393. As we held in
Tahanan Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, the absence of any
document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title
and the date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the
granting of such petition. (Emphasis supplied.)
Second. Respondent and the RTC overlooked that there are two parcels of
land in this case. It is glaring that respondent had to amend his petition for
reconstitution twice in order to state therein the names of the adjoining
owners. Most importantly, the Notice of Hearing issued by the RTC failed to
state the names of interested parties appearing in the OCT sought to be
reconstituted, particularly the adjoining owners to Lot No. 1, namely, Benito
Ferrer and Marcelo Monegas. While it is true that notices need not be sent
to the adjoining owners in this case since this is not required under
Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 26 as enunciated in our ruling in Puzon, it is
imperative, however, that the notice should specify the names of said
interested parties so named in the title sought to be reconstituted. No less
than Section 9 of R.A. No. 26 mandates it.
Well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that where the words of a statute are
clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
applied without attempted interpretation. Verba legis non est recedendum.
From the words of a statute there should be no departure. 61 In view of these
lapses, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction to proceed with the case since
the mandatory manner or mode of obtaining jurisdiction as prescribed by
R.A. No. 26 had not been strictly followed, thereby rendering the
proceedings utterly null and void.62 As such, while petitioner overlooked
these jurisdictional infirmities and failed to incorporate them as additional
issues in its own petition, this Court has sufficient authority to pass upon
and resolve the same since they affect jurisdiction. 63
Apropos is our ruling in Castillo v. Republic64 where we held that:
We cannot simply dismiss these defects as "technical." Liberal construction
of the Rules of Court does not apply to land registration cases. Indeed, to
further underscore the mandatory character of these jurisdictional
requirements, the Rules of Court do not apply to land registration cases. In
all cases where the authority of the courts to proceed is conferred by a
statute, and when the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is prescribed by a
statute, the mode of proceeding is mandatory, and must be strictly
complied with, or the proceeding will be utterly void. When the trial court
lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it lacks authority over the
whole case and all its aspects. All the proceedings before the trial court,
including its order granting the petition for reconstitution, are void for lack of
jurisdiction.65
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The
Decision dated July 31, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
87390 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for reconstitution
docketed as LRC No. V-0016, RTC, Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50, is
DISMISSED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C ATI O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice