This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-04-02 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| A parallel issue was encountered by the Court in Paz v. Republic of the Philippines,[35] which involved a petition for the cancellation of title brought under the auspices of Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. The petition sought the cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. 684 issued thru LRC Case No. 00-059 in favor of the Republic, Filinvest Development Corporation and Filinvest Alabang, Inc., and the issuance of a new title in the name of the petitioner therein. The petition was dismissed by the RTC. The dismissal was affirmed by the CA and eventually by this Court on the following reasons: We agree with both the CA and the RTC that the petitioner was in reality seeking the reconveyance of the property covered by OCT No. 684, not the cancellation of a certificate of title as contemplated by Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. Thus, his petition did not fall under any of the situations covered by Section 108, and was for that reason rightly dismissed. | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the foregoing characterization, Section 108 of PD 1529 explicitly states that said provision "shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration." In fact, based on settled jurisprudence, Section 108 of PD 1529 is limited only to seven instances or situations, namely: (a) when registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (b) when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (c) when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate; (d) when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; (e) when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; (f) when a corporation, which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; and (g) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.[48] Hence, the same cannot be said to constitute an attack on a certificate of title as defined by case law. That said, the Court proceeds to resolve the issue as to whether or not the dismissal of petitioner's twin petitions for the amendment of TCT Nos. 375657 and 375658 was proper. | |||||