Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SALVADOR SERRA SERRA v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 162335 & 162605 2008-12-18	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE TINGA, J.
There is no doubt that the Court of Appeals does not have original jurisdiction to annul Torrens titles or to otherwise adjudicate questions over ownership of property. Its exclusive original jurisdiction is determined by law, particularly by Batas Pambansa (B.P. 129). Section 9 of that law restricts the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to special civil actions and to actions for annulment of judgments of the regional trial court.[39] Still, the Court of Appeals did acquire jurisdiction over the Barques' and the Manotoks' petitions, albeit in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction[40] over the ruling of the LRA, also pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. Thus, for the appellate court to be able to direct the cancellation of a Torrens title in the course of reviewing a decision of the LRA, the LRA itself must have statutory authority to cancel a Torrens title in the first place.
	GR Nos. 182136-37 2008-08-29	BON-MAR REALTY YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
A proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession is a mere incident in the transfer of title;[37] the courts may not grant the writ where title is in doubt, as in this case, where the trial court still has to hear BON-MAR on its claim. The prudent course of action, therefore, is to hold in abeyance proceedings for the issuance of the writ. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property, not summarily through a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession.[38]
	GR No. 161037 2008-02-04	NORMA S. FACTOR v. ANTONIO V. MARTEL QUISUMBING, J.
It is well established that a writ of possession may be issued only pursuant to a decree of registration in original land registration proceedings not only against the person who has been defeated in a registration case but also against anyone adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof during the proceedings up to the issuance of the decree.[23]
	GR NO. 152827 2007-02-06	MENDOZA v. SOLEDAD SALINAS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A reading of the Serra Serra case, however, supports the Court's conclusion that a writ of possession should not have been issued in this case. It was ruled by the Court that while a writ of possession may be issued only pursuant to a decree of registration in an original land registration proceedings, it cannot issue against possessors under claim of ownership, as actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership, and the true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property, not summarily through a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession.[17]
	GR NO. 151235 2005-08-28	HEIRS OF JUAN PANGANIBAN v. ANGELINA N. DAYRIT TINGA, J.
The CA correctly ruled that the duplicate certificate of title in petitioners' possession is valid and subsisting. This Court had already ruled in Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals[28] that if a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of a new title.[29] Since the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 7864 earlier issued to Erlinda is still in existence, the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over respondent's petition for reconstitution of title. The duplicate certificate of title subsequently issued to respondent is therefore void and of no effect.
	GR No. 151235 2005-07-28	HEIRS OF JUAN PANGANIBAN v. ANGELINA N. DAYRIT TINGA, J.
The CA correctly ruled that the duplicate certificate of title in petitioners' possession is valid and subsisting. This Court had already ruled in Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals[28] that if a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of a new title.[29] Since the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 7864 earlier issued to Erlinda is still in existence, the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over respondent's petition for reconstitution of title. The duplicate certificate of title subsequently issued to respondent is therefore void and of no effect.
	GR No. 149992 2004-08-20	HI-TONE MARKETING CORPORATION v. BAIKAL REALTY CORPORATION TINGA, J.
The reconstitution of a title is simply the reissuance of a new duplicate certificate of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition.[68] While a reconstituted title has the same validity and effect as the original thereof,[69] however, if in fact the certificate of title has not been lost but is in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is in effect void.[70]