Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DORDAS v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-11-2259 2013-10-22	MA. REGINA S. PERALTA v. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO PER CURIAM
The requirements prescribed by Sections 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26 are mandatory and compliance with such requirements is jurisdictional.[68] Notice of hearing of the petition for reconstitution of title must be served on the actual possessors of the property. Notice thereof by publication is insufficient. Jurisprudence is to the effect settled that in petitions for reconstitution of titles, actual owners and possessors of the land involved must be duly served with actual and personal notice of the petition.[69] Compliance with the actual notice requirement is necessary for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution.[70] If no notice of the date of hearing of a reconstitution case is served on a possessor or one having interest in the property involved, he is deprived of his day in court and the order of reconstitution is null and void.[71]
	GR No. 163610 2010-09-27	HEIRS OF ENRIQUE TORING v. HEIRS OF TEODOSIA BOQUILAGA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It may also be noted that the petition for reconstitution filed by respondents and the Certifications issued by the LRA stated only the registration decree numbers issued in favor of Teodosia Boquilaga without mentioning the numbers of the OCTs and dates of their issuance.[26] The reconstituted OCTs on their face contained no entry whatsoever as to the number of the OCT issued pursuant to the decrees of registration, nor the date of its issuance. We have held that such 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 a petition for reconstitution.[27] Moreover, notice of hearing of the petition for reconstitution of title must be served on the actual possessors of the property. Notice thereof by publication is insufficient. Jurisprudence is to the effect settled that in petitions for reconstitution of titles, actual owners and possessors of the land involved must be duly served with actual and personal notice of the petition.[28]
	GR No. 162097 2008-02-13	LOURDES A. PASCUA v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
We are not convinced. RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is sought to be reconstituted has already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens System, Act No. 496.[8] Petitioner's evidence itself, the Deed of Sale between Limuaco and her parents, stated that the lot was not registered under Act No. 496 and that the parties agreed to register it under Act No. 3344. Even the Deed of Co-owner's Partition stated that the subject lot, Lot No. 19-pt, is not registered. The other piece of evidence, the certifications from the LRA, merely stated that Decree No. 412846 covering Lot No. 3209 was issued on December 4, 1930, but the copy of said decree is not among the salvaged decrees on file with said office. The said copy is presumed lost or destroyed during World War II. The LRA neither stated that a certificate of title was actually issued nor mentioned the number of the OCT. It cannot be determined from any of the evidence submitted by petitioner that the adjudicatee of the purported decree was Limuaco.
	GR NO. 142810 2005-08-18	DOLORES A. CABELLO v. REPUBLIC TINGA, J.
Republic Act No. 26, entitled "An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title Lost or Destroyed", approved on September 25, 1946, lays down the procedure by which previously issued but lost or destroyed certificates of title may be reconstituted. As the title of the law suggests, it presupposes that the property whose title is sought to be reconstituted has already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens System, Act 496.[10]
	GR No. 111715 2000-06-08	MANUEL SILVESTRE BERNARDO and the HEIRS OF JOSE P. BERNARDO namely v. SANTOS GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The requirements of these provisions of law must be complied with before the court can act on the petition and grant to the petitioner the reconstitution of title prayed for.[54] The requirement of notice by publication is thus a jurisdictional requirement and noncompliance therewith is fatal to the petition for reconstitution of title.[55] However, notwithstanding compliance with that requirement, actual notice to the occupants of the property is still mandatory. Thus:"Notice of hearing of the petition for reconstitution of title must be served on the actual possessors of the property. Notice thereof by publication is insufficient. Jurisprudence is to the effect settled that in petitions for reconstitution of titles, actual owners and possessors of the land involved must be duly served with actual and personal notice of the petition."[56]
	GR No. 111715 2000-06-08	MANUEL SILVESTRE BERNARDO and the HEIRS OF JOSE P. BERNARDO namely v. SANTOS GONZAGA-REYES, J.
"Notice of hearing of the petition for reconstitution of title must be served on the actual possessors of the property. Notice thereof by publication is insufficient. Jurisprudence is to the effect settled that in petitions for reconstitution of titles, actual owners and possessors of the land involved must be duly served with actual and personal notice of the petition."[56]
	GR No. 112905 2000-02-03	HEIRS OF PEDRO LOPEZ v. HONESTO C. DE CASTRO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In all cases where the authority to proceed is conferred by a statute and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory, the same must be strictly complied with, or the proceedings will be utterly void.[23]