Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EASTWORLD MOTOR INDUSTRIES CORPORATION v. SKUNAC CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 181057 2015-06-17	JOSEFINA C. BILLOTE v. IMELDA SOLIS PERALTA, J.
Time and again, 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, the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction.[27] Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of loss of the original certificate.[28] Thus, the fact of loss of the duplicate certificate is jurisdictional.[29]
	GR No. 177042 2012-12-10	SPS. CRISANTO ALCAZAR AND SUSANA VILLAMAYOR v. EVELYN ARANTE PERALTA, J.
Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of loss of the original certificate.[35] This rule was later reiterated in the cases of Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[36] Eastworld Motor Industries Corporation v. Skunac Corporation,[37] Rodriguez v. Lim,[38] Villanueva v. Viloria[39] and Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation.[40] Thus, with proof and with the admission of petitioners that the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT was actually in the possession of respondent, the RTC Decision was properly annulled for lack of jurisdiction.
	GR No. 177181 2009-07-07	RABAJA RANCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AFP RETIREMENT NACHURA, J.
Settled is the rule that no valid TCT can issue from a void TCT, unless an innocent purchaser for value had intervened. An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in the property, for which a full and fair price is paid by the buyer at the time of the purchase or before receipt of any notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. The protection given to innocent purchasers for value is necessary to uphold a certificate of title's efficacy and conclusiveness, which the Torrens system ensures.[39]
	GR NO. 171250 2007-07-04	SPS. CARLOS AND EULALIA RAYMUNDO AND SPS. ANGELITO AND JOCELYN BUENAOBRA v. SPS. DOMINADOR AND ROSALIA BANDONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in the property, for which a full and fair price is paid by the buyer at the time of the purchase or before receipt of any notice of claims or interest of some other person in the property.[22]