This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-02-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner contends that the CA erred in affirming the Order of the trial court granting respondents' petition for reconstitution considering that respondents failed to present competent proof to establish their claim. First, respondents anchor their claim on the Certification[15] issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to prove that Decree No. 190622 was issued for Lot 54. However, said Certification did not state that Decree No. 190622 was issued in the name Julio Ramos. Second, when reconstitution is anchored on Section 2(f) of Republic Act (RA) No. 26,[16] just like in this case, the Relocation Survey Plan and Technical Description are mere supporting evidence to the "other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title." Thus, the court a quo erred in ordering reconstitution based on the Relocation Survey Plan and Technical Description presented by the respondents. | |||||
|
2010-02-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the Certification[31] issued by the LRA stating that Decree No. 190622 was issued for Lot 54 means nothing. The Land Registration Act expressly recognizes two classes of decrees in land registration proceedings, namely, (i) decrees dismissing the application and (ii) decrees of confirmation and registration.[32] In the case at bench, we cannot ascertain from said Certification whether the decree alluded to by the respondents granted or denied Julio Ramos' claim. Moreover, the LRA's Certification did not state to whom Lot 54 was decreed. Thus, assuming that Decree No. 190622 is a decree of confirmation, it would be too presumptuous to further assume that the same was issued in the name and in favor of Julio Ramos. Furthermore, said Certification did not indicate the number of the original certificate of title and the date said title was issued. In Tahanan Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[33] we held that the absence of any document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title and date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of such petition. | |||||