5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly herein. Petitioners are Filipino citizens, a fact the Solicitor General does not dispute. The constitutional proscription on alien ownership of lands of the public or private domain was intended to protect lands from falling in the hands of non-Filipinos. In this case, however, there would be no more public policy violated since the land is in the hands of Filipinos qualified to acquire and own such land. "If land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid."[33] Thus, the subsequent transfer of the property to qualified Filipinos may no longer be impugned on the basis of the invalidity of the initial transfer.[34] The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved. Incidentally, it must be mentioned that reconstitution of the original certificate of title must be based on an owner's duplicate, secondary evidence thereof, or other valid sources of the title to be reconstituted.[35] In this case, reconstitution was based on the plan and technical description approved by the Land Registration Authority.[36] This renders the order of reconstitution void for lack of factual support.[37] A judgment with absolutely nothing to support it is void.[38] As earlier mentioned, a reconstitution of title is the re-issuance of a new certificate of title lost or destroyed in its original form and condition.[39] It does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title.[40] Any change in the ownership of the property must be the subject of a separate suit.[41] Thus, although petitioners are in possession of the land, a separate proceeding is necessary to thresh out the issue of ownership of the land. WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 36274. In lieu thereof, the Court sets aside the order of reconstitution of title in Reconstitution Case No. R-1928, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, and dismisses the petition, without prejudice. No costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur. Kapunan, J., on official leave. * Neither the judge nor the Court of Appeals is a proper party as petitioner or respondent (Rule 45, Sec. 4, Revised Rules of Court). [1] In CA-G. R. SP No. 36274, promulgated on April 30, 1996. Salas, J., ponente, Cañizares-Nye and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concurring. [2] Dated June 10, 1994. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52904 5/8