Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NEW DURAWOOD CO. v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 181057 2015-06-17	JOSEFINA C. BILLOTE v. IMELDA SOLIS PERALTA, J.
At the outset, it must be noted that the applicable law in this case is not Sections 18 and 19 of RA No. 26 but Section 109 of PD No. 1529. A reading of the provisions clearly reveals that Sections 18 and 19 of RA No. 26 applies only in cases of reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certificates of title on file with the Register of Deeds, while Section 109 of PD No. 1529 governs petitions for the issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title which are lost or destroyed.[24]
	GR NO. 135817 2006-11-30	REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ v. CONCORDIA ONG LIM CALLEJO, SR., J.
It has been consistently ruled that "when the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of loss of the original certificate."[18] In such a case, "the decision authorizing the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title may be attacked any time."[19]
	GR NO. 162593 2006-09-26	REMEGIA Y. FELICIANO v. SPS. AURELIO AND LUZ ZALDIVAR CALLEJO, SR., J.
However, as the trial court correctly held, the CFI which granted respondent Aurelio's petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-8502 did not acquire jurisdiction to issue such order. It has been consistently ruled that "when the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of loss of the original certificate."[12] In such a case, the decision authorizing the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title may be attacked any time.[13]
	GR NO. 144099 2005-09-26	ELVIRA MACABALO-BRAVO v. JUAN F. MACABALO
In order to put the issues in their proper perspective, it is necessary to emphasize at the outset that in a petition for issuance of second owner's duplicate copy of certificate of title in replacement of a lost one, the only issues to be resolved are: whether or not the original owner's duplicate copy had indeed been lost and whether the petitioner seeking the issuance of a new owner's duplicate title is the registered owner or other person in interest.[10] The ownership of the property is not in issue. Thus, in Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[11] the Court emphasized that:. . . In a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title in lieu of one allegedly lost, the RTC, acting only as a land registration court, has no jurisdiction to pass upon the question of actual ownership of the land covered by the lost owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title. Possession of a lost owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title is not necessarily equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. The certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is merely an evidence of title over a particular property.[12]