📋 Tender Overview
The Supreme Court (SC) during its session on January 28, 2026, acted on:G.R. No. 264862, In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC denied the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which questioned the removal of an annotation on Antonio V. Mitras (Mitra) land title.Mitra owns a parcel of land in Quezon City. After his transfer certificate of title (TCT) was presumed lost or destroyed, he applied for administrative reconstitution.Following Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, the law that governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles, the reconstituted title contained an annotation stating that it was without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted on the original copy at the time it was lost or destroyed.Twenty-seven years later, Mitra asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the annotation, pointing out that no one had claimed any interest in the property during that period. The RTC granted the request and ordered the removal of the annotation.The OSG challenged the ruling, arguing that Mitra failed to comply with the publication and posting requirement for petitions of this kind. However, the Court of Appeals upheld the RTC, ruling that these requirements no longer applied because of the long lapse of time since the title was reconstituted.The SC agreed.The SC explained that under R.A. 26, posting and publication are required only if the petition to cancel the mandatory annotation is filed within two years from the date of administrative reconstitution, and no petition to annotate an omitted interest has been filed during that period.The Decision reaffirms earlier rulings in and . It also clarifies the procedure that trial courts should follow when resolving petitions to cancel mandatory annotations placed on administratively reconstituted land titles under R.A. 26.The full text of the Decision will be posted on the SC website once available.)
