Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR Nos. 162335 & 162605 2010-08-24	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Learning of the Barques' petition, the Manotoks filed their opposition thereto, alleging that TCT No. 210177 was spurious. Although both titles of the Manotoks and the Barques refer to land belonging to Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate situated in the then Municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal, TCT No. 210177 actually involves two (2) parcels with an aggregate area of 342,945 square meters, while TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) pertains only to a single parcel of land, with a similar area of 342,945 square meters.[11]
	GR No. 188471 2010-04-20	FRANCISCO ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioners sought a reconsideration. On December 5, 2003, however, the Court denied their motion for reconsideration.[10] Hence, the decision in G.R. No. 130876 became final and executory.
	GR No. 150470 2008-08-06	SPS. FELIPE AND VICTORIA LAYOS v. FIL-ESTATE GOLF CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The prayer of the Spouses Layos to have LRC Case No. B-1784 remanded to the San Pedro RTC for trial, if granted, would only be farcical. Should the San Pedro RTC subsequently grant the reconstitution of OCT No. 239 after the trial, it would only be an empty victory for the Spouses Layos, for a reconstituted certificate of title, like the original certificate, by itself does not vest ownership of the land or estate covered thereby.[56] The valid title to the subject property would still be that of La Paz, as determined by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50962, over which the reconstituted certificate of title of the Spouses Layos cannot prevail. The reconstituted OCT No. 239 would be a mere piece of paper with actually no title to evidence ownership.As earlier mentioned, a reconstitution of title is the re-issuance of a new certificate of title lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. It does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Any change in the ownership of the property must be the subject of a separate suit. Thus, although petitioners are in possession of the land, a separate proceeding is necessary to thresh out the issue of ownership of the land.[57]
	GR NO. 142766 2007-06-15	NARCISO AMOROSO v. JUAN ALEGRE TINGA, J.
It is apparent that a petition for reconstitution of title and a case for recovery of possession of property have no identity of causes of action. In a reconstitution case, the judgment merely orders the re-issuance of a lost certificate of title in its original form and condition. It does not determine or resolve the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. A reconstituted title, like the original certificate of title, by itself does not vest ownership of the land or estate covered thereby.[37] An accion reivindicatoria, on the other hand, is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership. It is an action whereby the plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. The judgment in such a case determines the ownership of the property and awards the possession of the property to the lawful owner.
	GR NOS. 162335 & 162605 2005-12-12	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
By cancelling the TCT of Manotok, et al., and upholding the TCT of the Heirs of Barque, the Court of Appeals resolved in the administrative reconstitution case the issue of ownership over the property in dispute. This is grave error because ownership is never in issue in a petition for reconstitution of title. As this Court ruled in Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.[52]:Respondent relies solely on its reconstituted title which, by itself, does not determine or resolve the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. The reconstitution of a title is simply the re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title in its original form and condition. It does not determine or resolve the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. A reconstituted title , like the original certificate of title, by itself does not vest ownership of the land or estate covered thereby. (Emphasis in original) In a petition for reconstitution of title, the only relief sought is the issuance of a reconstituted title because the reconstituting officer's power is limited to granting or denying a reconstituted title. The reconstituting officer has no power to decide questions of ownership. A Torrens title, even a reconstituted title, is "evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein."[53] Certainly, the reconstituting officer in an administrative proceeding has no authority to deprive a third party of his property by cancelling his Torrens title to the property. In a petition for reconstitution, such third party is not even required to be impleaded as a respondent.
	GR No. 147575 2004-10-22	TERESITA B. MENDOZA v. BETH DAVID CARPIO, J.
In civil cases, the burden of proof[28] rests on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue based on the pleadings or the nature of the case.[29] In this case, the burden lies on Mendoza who must prove her allegation that there was breach of contract. After reviewing the records of the case, the Court finds that Mendoza failed to substantiate her claim of breach of contract. Mendoza failed to present any evidence to overcome the presumption that the transaction was fair and regular.[30]