Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BASILISA ZAFRA VDA. DE ANCIANO v. FAUSTINA CABALLES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 162335 & 162605 2008-12-18	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE TINGA, J.
Lastly, in the 1st indorsement issued by the Land Projection Section of the LRA dated 23 August 2006, that Section stated that upon examination it was found out that the land as described in the Barque title "when plotted thru its tie line falls outside Quezon City." This is material, since Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate is within the boundaries of Quezon City.[62] A similar finding was made by the Land Management Bureau (LMB). It attested that the line or directional azimuth of Lot No. 823 per the Barque title locates it at 5,889 meters away from point 1 of Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate.[63]
	GR No. 150470 2008-08-06	SPS. FELIPE AND VICTORIA LAYOS v. FIL-ESTATE GOLF CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
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.[46] For an order of reconstitution to issue, the following elements must be present: 1) the certificate of title has been lost or destroyed; 2) the petitioner is the registered owner or has an interest therein; and 3) the certificate of title is in force at the time it was lost or destroyed.[47]
	GR No. 130876 2003-12-05	FRANCISCO ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We now come to the issue of whether the reconstituted title in the name of the private respondent is valid. The majority Decision stated that the reconstitution of private respondent's title "was based on the owner's duplicate of title." This statement leaves much to be desired. The Court of Appeals finding that there is no record of the existence of either TCT No. 11351 or TCT No. 1021 covering Lot 727[18] binds us, as held in numerous decisions.[19] Besides, as pointed out by petitioners, the absence of a technical description on the face of the reconstituted title is, by and in itself, incontrovertible proof that the reconstitution was not based on a genuine owner's duplicate. Indeed, if it were genuine, the owner's duplicate of the Certificate of Title that was used as source document in the administrative reconstitution would have contained a full technical description of Lot 727 D-2. And this would have found its way to the reconstituted title which merely mirrors its source document.[20]