This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-09-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| On May 10, 2000, the Reblandos filed a complaint before the RTC, seeking, as their main prayer, the declaration of nullity of the mortgage over Lot No. 10 allegedly constituted on January 13, 1995 when PNB and the Reblandos executed the "Amendment to Real Estate Mortgage." According to them, they could not have validly created a mortgage over Lot No. 10, not being the owner when the mortgage was constituted, citing in this regard Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) v. Court of Appeals.[14] What, they added, impelled them to include Lot No. 10 in the mortgage package, albeit it did not belong to them, was the PNB's "require[ment] [for them] to post [Lot No. 10] as additional collateral."[15] | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| By Order of September 9, 1996, Judge Jaime D. Discaya approved the recommendation[12] made by the court-appointed commissioners that Lots 23, 28-A-1 and 28-A-2 be segregated from OCT No. 994, and ordered the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City "to issue new certificates of title in the name of Eleuteria Rivera x x x."[13] In the court's Order of September 17, 1996, the surrender of the owner's duplicate certificate of title of OCT No. 994 "if the same is no longer available, lost or otherwise" was dispensed with.[14] | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Upon learning of this development, Phil-Ville requested then Land Registration Authority (LRA) Administrator Reynaldo Y. Maulit to investigate the discrepancies in the date of registration of OCT No. 994, as reflected in its TCTs and those of Rivera.[19] Phil-Ville invited attention to petitioner's letter of September 20, 1996 informing it that there was only one OCT No. 994, which was transcribed or registered on May 3, 1917, as well as to the LRA Administrator's certification of October 31, 1996 confirming that OCT No. 994 was issued on May 3, 1917. | |||||