This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It must be recalled at this point that in a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title in lieu of one allegedly lost, the RTC, acting only as a land registration court, has no jurisdiction to pass upon the question of actual ownership of the Jand covered by the lost owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title.[32] Possession of a lost owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title is not necessarily equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. The certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is merely an evidence of title over a particular property.[33] | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
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. | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| On 7 September 2006, Felicitas Manahan and Rosendo Manahan filed a motion to intervene, to which was attached their petition in intervention.[33] Movants alleged that the property subject of the petition in G.R. No. 162335 and G.R. No. 162605 was owned by them. They claimed that their predecessor-in-interest, Vicente Manahan, was issued Sales Certificate No. 511 which covered lot 823 of the Piedad Estate. Moreover, they attached to their petition the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that the documents of the Manotoks were not as old as they were purported to be.[34] The Director of the Legal Division of the Land Management Bureau (LMB) recommended to the Director of the LMB that:...steps be taken in the proper court for the cancellation of TCT No. RT-22481(372302) and all its derivative titles so that the land covered may be reverted to the State.[35] | |||||
|
2005-12-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently held that when the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction.[13] Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of loss of the original certificate.[14] The rationale for this principle is summarized in Strait Times v. Court of Appeals,[15] from which we quote:"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. It does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Possession of a lost certificate is not necessarily equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. The certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is merely an evidence of title over a particular property.[16] Applying the above ruling to the instant case, the certificate of title procured by Miguel Lim was clearly void. Respondent corporation's presentation of the original owner's duplicate certificate of title showed to the court the physical existence, and the corporation's possession, of the certificate. The existence of the document is in fact unrebutted by petitioner. | |||||
|
2005-09-26 |
|||||
| In order to put the issues in their proper perspective, it is necessary to emphasize at the outset that in a petition for issuance of second owner's duplicate copy of certificate of title in replacement of a lost one, the only issues to be resolved are: whether or not the original owner's duplicate copy had indeed been lost and whether the petitioner seeking the issuance of a new owner's duplicate title is the registered owner or other person in interest.[10] The ownership of the property is not in issue. Thus, in Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[11] the Court emphasized that:. . . In a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title in lieu of one allegedly lost, the RTC, acting only as a land registration court, has no jurisdiction to pass upon the question of actual ownership of the land covered by the lost owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title. Possession of a lost owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title is not necessarily equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. The certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is merely an evidence of title over a particular property.[12] | |||||