This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be noted that the applicable law in this case is not Sections 18 and 19 of RA No. 26 but Section 109 of PD No. 1529. A reading of the provisions clearly reveals that Sections 18 and 19 of RA No. 26 applies only in cases of reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certificates of title on file with the Register of Deeds, while Section 109 of PD No. 1529 governs petitions for the issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title which are lost or destroyed.[24] | |||||
|
2006-11-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It has been consistently ruled that "when the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of loss of the original certificate."[18] In such a case, "the decision authorizing the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title may be attacked any time."[19] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| However, as the trial court correctly held, the CFI which granted respondent Aurelio's petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-8502 did not acquire jurisdiction to issue such order. It has been consistently ruled that "when the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of loss of the original certificate."[12] In such a case, the decision authorizing the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title may be attacked any time.[13] | |||||