This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-08-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Even assuming arguendo that the accused-appellants made a timely objection to their warrantless arrests, jurisprudence is replete with rulings that support the view that their conviction was proper despite being illegally arrested without a warrant. In People v. Manlulu,[36] the Court ruled that the illegality of the warrantless arrest cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute the guilty when all other facts on record point to their culpability. Indeed, the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.[37] | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the respondents were unable to discharge the burden of proof prescribed by law and jurisprudence for the reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certificate of title. First, respondents failed to prove that the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 3980 was indeed eaten by termites while in the custody of respondent Concepcion Lorenzo and her late husband Pedro Fontanilla who, inexplicably, did not execute an affidavit of loss as required by Section 109[17] of Presidential Decree No. 1529. Second, The Certification[18] dated April 23, 2001 issued by the Register of Deeds of Ilagan, Isabela did not categorically state that the original copy of OCT No. 3980, which respondents alleged to be on file with said office, was among those destroyed by the fire that gutted the premises of said office on December 4, 1976. The document only stated that said office "could not give any information/data involving the existence of Original/Transfer Certificate of Title No. Lot No. 18, area 770 sq. m., located at Taggapan, Echague, Isabela." Third, a comparison between the aforementioned certification and the technical description and sketch plan will reveal that there was a discrepancy in the land area of the lot allegedly covered by OCT No. 3980. What was reflected on the former was a land area of 770 sq. m. while the latter two documents pertained to a land area of 811 sq. m. Furthermore, respondents were not able to show adequate proof that a Torrens certificate of title was issued covering the subject parcel of land or that the same piece of land is what is covered by the allegedly lost or destroyed OCT No. 3980. The Certification[19] dated December 3, 2001 issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) which indicates that Decree No. 650254 issued on September 1, 1937 is not among the salvaged decrees on file in the LRA and is presumed to have been lost or destroyed as a consequence of World War II does not support respondents' assertion that OCT No. 3980 did exist prior to its loss or destruction because said document failed to show a connection between Decree No. 650254 and OCT No. 3980. From the foregoing, it is apparent that the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that "(t)he enumeration of the preferential documents to be produced as provided under Section 2 of Republic Act 26 had been substantially complied with" had no foundation based on the evidence on record. | |||||