Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. MACARIA L. TUASTUMBAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 212388 2014-12-10	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF SPS. DONATO SANCHEZ AND JUANA MENESES VELASCO JR., J.
The CA held that even though respondents were unable to present the documents necessary for reconstitution of title as enumerated under Section 2 of RA No. 26, particularly (a) to (e) thereof, the documentary pieces of evidence presented by respondents fall under paragraph (f) of said provision and are sufficient to warrant the reconstitution of OCT No. 45361. In this regard, the CA emphasized that the certificates of title which the RD manifested to have superseded OCT No. 45361 all bear the notation to the effect that Lot No. 854 was originally registered on January 29, 1931 as OCT No. 45361 pursuant to Decree No. 418121 issued in G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record No. 920, the name of the registered owner of which is not available. This, to the CA, substantially complies with the requirement enunciated in Republic v. Tuastumban[4] that the documents must come from official sources which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-interest.
	GR No. 205065 2014-06-04	VERGEL PAULINO v. CA MENDOZA, J.
From the foregoing, the following must be present for an order for reconstitution to issue: (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title; (c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest therein; (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost and destroyed; and (e) that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.[27]
	AM No. RTJ-11-2259 2013-10-22	MA. REGINA S. PERALTA v. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO PER CURIAM
In Republic v. Tuastumban,[62] the Court enumerated what needs to be shown before the issuance of an order for reconstitution: (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title; (c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or has an interest therein; (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed; and (e) that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.[63] That OCT Nos. 164, 219, 337 and 67 are already cancelled titles was definitively settled by this Court. Respondent's stubborn disregard of our pronouncement that the said titles can no longer be reconstituted is a violation of his mandate to apply the relevant statutes and jurisprudence in deciding cases.
	GR No. 186610 2013-07-29	POLICE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT DIMAPINTO MACAWADIB v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTORATE FOR PERSONNEL PERALTA, J.
On the question of whether or not respondent is estopped from assailing the decision of the RTC for failure of the OSG, as government representative, to participate in the proceedings before the trial court or to file an opposition to petitioner's petition for correction of entries in his service records, this Court rules that such an apparent oversight has no bearing on the validity of the appeal which the petitioner filed before the CA. Neither can the State, as represented by the government, be considered in estoppel due to the petitioner's seeming acquiescence to the judgment of the RTC when it initially made corrections to some of petitioner's records with the PNP. This Court has reiterated time and again that the absence of opposition from government agencies is of no controlling significance, because the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents.[18] Nor is the Republic barred from assailing the decision granting the petition for correction of entries if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.[19]
	GR No. 170459 2011-02-09	REPUBLIC v. VERGEL DE DIOS NACHURA, J.
The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land. The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction occurred.[15]
	GR No. 163610 2010-09-27	HEIRS OF ENRIQUE TORING v. HEIRS OF TEODOSIA BOQUILAGA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The governing law for judicial reconstitution of titles is Republic Act No. 26. Based on the provisions of said law, the following must be present for an order for reconstitution to issue: (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title; (c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest therein; (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost and destroyed; and (e) that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.[25] If indeed, as petitioners claimed, the OCTs in the name of Teodosia Boquilaga were already cancelled and new TCTs have already been issued in the name of Enrique Toring as early as 1927, then the reconstituted OCT Nos. RO-13237, RO-13238, RO-13239 and RO-13240 issued in Cad Case No. 7, Cad Rec. No. 442 are null and void.
	GR No. 171774 2010-02-12	REPUBLIC v. APOLINARIO CATARROJA ABAD, J.
This Court has, in Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[16] applied the principle of ejusdem generis in interpreting Section 2(f) of R.A. 26. "Any other document" refers to reliable documents of the kind described in the preceding enumerations. This Court is not convinced that the above documents of the Catarrojas fall in the same class as those enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (e). None of them proves that a certificate of title had in fact been issued in the name of their parents. In Republic v. Tuastumban,[17] the Court ruled that the documents must come from official sources which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-interest. None of the documents presented in this case fit such description.