This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The perceived advantages of the Torrens system of registration of land titles have helped stabilize land ownership in the Philippines. Its underlying principle is security with facility in dealing with land.[1] Its fundamental purpose is to quiet title to land, to perpetually enjoin any question in the legality of the title,[2] hence, the titles issued under the system are indefeasible. Yet the Torrens system is imperfect in that it remains susceptible to fraud, either in the original registration proceedings or in subsequent transactions.[3] | |||||
|
2006-12-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| That the notice of the petition must be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing; That the notice state among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificates of title if known, the name of the registered owner, the name of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owner of the adjoining properties and all other interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the property, and the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their claim or objection to the petition; That a copy of the notice also be sent, by registered mail or otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein (i.e. the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owner of the adjoining properties and all other interested parties) whose address is known at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing; and That at the hearing, petitioner submits proof of publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the court.[16] These requirements are mandatory and compliance with such requirements is jurisdictional.[17] | |||||
|
2006-03-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Substantial compliance with the jurisdictional requirements laid down in Sections 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26 is not enough; the trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the reconstitution case is hinged on a strict compliance with the requirements of the law.[22] It must be stressed that the purposes of the stringent and mandatory character of the legal requirements of publication, posting and mailing are to safeguard against spurious and unfounded land ownership claims, to apprise all interested parties of the existence of such action, and to give them enough time to intervene in the proceeding.[23] | |||||
|
2002-04-17 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We cannot simply close our eyes to the patent jurisdictional infirmities present in the proceeding for reconstitution. Republic Act No. 26 specifically provides the special requirements and mode of procedure that must be followed before the court can properly act, assume and acquire jurisdiction or authority over the petition and grant the reconstitution prayed for. These requirements and procedure are mandatory.[52] In the case at bar, the source of the petition for reconstitution was the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 219. Thus, pursuant to Puzon vs. Sta. Lucia realty and Development, Inc.,[53] the petition is governed by Section 10 of R.A. No. 26, quoted as follows:"Sec. 10. Nothing herein above provided shall prevent any registered owner or person in interest from filing the petition mentioned in Section Five of this Act directly with the proper Court of First Instance, based on sources enumerated in Section 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and/or 4(a) of this Act: Provided, however, That the Court shall cause a notice of the petition, before hearing and granting the same, to be published in the manner stated in Section Nine[54] hereof: And provided, further, That certificates of title reconstituted pursuant to this section shall not be subject to the encumbrance referred to in Section Seven of this Act. (Emphasis supplied) Concisely, Section 10, in relation to Section 9, requires that 30 days before the date of hearing, (1) a notice be published in two successive issues of the Official Gazette at the expense of the petitioner, and that (2) such notice be posted at the main entrances of the provincial building and of the municipal hall where the property is located. The notice shall state the following: (1) the number of the certificate of title, (2) the name of the registered owner, (3) the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, (4) the location of the property, and (5) the date on which all persons having an interest in the property, must appear and file such claims as they may have.[55] | |||||
|
2000-11-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| While the ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the petition below was clearly that of improper venue,[15] the Solicitor General confuses venue with jurisdiction. A distinction between the two must be drawn. Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is conferred only by law.[16] It may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action. On the other hand, the venue of an action as fixed by statute may be changed by the consent of the parties, and an objection on improper venue may be waived by the failure of the defendant to raise it at the proper time. In such an event, the court may still render a valid judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or agreement of the parties. Venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and hence may be waived. It is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to the courts as it relates to the place of trial.[17] | |||||