Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. RAFAEL F. HOLAZO

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 187378 2013-09-30	RAMONITO O. ACAAC v. MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated September 30, 2008 and Resolution[3] dated March 9, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 00284-MIN which reversed and set aside the Decision[4] dated November 26, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Branch 2 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 4684 for injunction.
	GR No. 175788 2009-06-30	ENRIQUITA ANGAT v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The nature of the action for reconstitution of a certificate of title under Republic Act No. 26, entitled "An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate of Title Lost or Destroyed," denotes a restoration of the instrument, which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed, in its original form and condition.[30] The purpose of such an action is merely to have the certificate of title reproduced, after proper proceedings, in the same form it was in when its loss or destruction occurred.[31] The same Republic Act No. 26 specifies the requisites to be met for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution of a certificate of title. As we held in Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Velasco,[32] failure to comply with any of these jurisdictional requirements for a petition for reconstitution renders the proceedings null and void. Thus, in obtaining a new title in lieu of the lost or destroyed one, Republic Act No. 26 laid down procedures which must be strictly followed in view of the danger that reconstitution could be the source of anomalous titles or unscrupulously availed of as an easy substitute for original registration of title proceedings.
	GR No. 175788 2009-06-30	ENRIQUITA ANGAT v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The real property tax receipts in the name of Federico for the years 1989 to 1998 deserve little probative value. There is no showing that real property taxes were paid by Federico and/or Enriquita, or their alleged predecessors-in-interest prior to 1989. Despite Federico and Enriquita's claim of possession of the subject property since 1955, Federico himself admitted that he first paid the real estate taxes on the subject property only in 1989. Realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership but are mere indicia of possession in the concept of owners.[36] Neither are realty tax payment receipts sufficient to warrant reconstitution.
	GR No. 172848 2008-12-10	REPUBLIC v. JOSE VICTORINO K. CASTRO TINGA, J.
Third. The courts a quo make much of the fact that the Republic, through the OSG or the provincial prosecutor, failed to interpose any opposition/objection to the evidence presented by the heirs, and that it did not also present any evidence against the claims of the heirs. It has been held, however, that the Republic of the Philippines is not estopped from assailing the decision granting the petition for reconstitution if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.[40]
	GR No. 155703 2008-09-08	REPUBLIC v. DOMINADOR SANTUA NACHURA, J.
The Court has already settled in a number of cases that, following the principle of ejusdem generis in statutory construction, "any document" mentioned in Section 3 should be interpreted to refer to documents similar to those previously enumerated therein.[11] As aptly observed by the petitioner, the documents enumerated in Section 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are documents that had been issued or are on file with the Register of Deeds, thus, highly credible.
	GR No. 173525 2008-03-28	REPUBLIC v. GERTRUDES B. VERZOSA TINGA, J,
It is correct, as petitioner avers, that courts must exercise the greatest caution in entertaining petitions for reconstitution of destroyed or lost certificates of title. In Republic v. Holazo,[16] the Court warned that:The tampering of genuine certificates of title and the issuance of fake ones are a widespread malaise that has seriously threatened the very stability of the Torrens system. Worse, the courts have been, at times, unwitting accomplices in these acts of corruption. In Alabang, supra, we sounded this admonition:
	GR NO. 166899 2006-08-10	HEIRS OF PASTORA LOZANO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS CALLEJO, SR., J.
The reconstitution of the title or deed is simply the re-issuance of the copy of the certificate of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition.[39] The purpose of the reconstitution of title or any document is to have the same reproduced, after observing the procedure provided by law, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred.[40]