This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Further, the letter dated 2 January 1997 from the LMB stated that the copy of FLS-3168-D as verified from its microfilm file was the same as the copy sent by the Technical Records and Statistics Section of the National Capital Region Lands Management Sector.[54] The LMB, however, denied issuing such letter and stated that it was a forged document.[55] To amplify the forged nature of the document, the LMB sent a detailed explanation to prove that it did not come from its office.[56] In a letter to the administrator of the LRA, the hearing officer concluded that "it is evident that there is an attempt to mislead us into favorable action by submitting forged documents, hence it is recommended that this case [be] referred to the PARAC for investigation and filing of charges against perpetrators as envisioned by this office under your administration."[57] | |||||
|
2006-12-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals granted the petition and ordered the annulment of the impugned Order.[8] It found that the Owner's Copy is in the possession of respondent since 1967. Thus, petitioners do not own the property, nor do they have any interest thereon that could have been the subject of succession. Moreover, the Court of Appeals found that petitioners committed perjury in executing their Joint Affidavit of Loss in support of their petition before the trial court as they made it appear that the Owner's Copy was still in the possession of the spouses Camitan, when in fact, as early as 1967, the same had already been given to respondent. Finally, citing Demetriou v. Court of Appeals[9] the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court could not have acquired jurisdiction over the petition because the Owner's | |||||
|
2003-08-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Mojica filed a petition for reconstitution[17] of the owner's duplicate of TCT 8361 claiming that this owner's duplicate was lost. However, contrary to Mojica's claims, the owner's duplicate of TCT 8361 was not lost but in Pineda's possession. Since the owner's duplicate of TCT 8361 was in fact not lost or destroyed, there was obviously nothing to reconstitute or replace. Therefore, the trial court correctly ruled that the reconstitution proceedings and the second owner's duplicate of TCT 8361 are void.[18] As the Court held in New Durawood Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[19] | |||||