Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 169481 2010-02-22	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF JULIO RAMOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is unfortunate that despite the mandatory nature of the above requirements[19] and our constant reminder to courts to scrutinize and verify carefully all supporting documents in petitions for reconstitution,[20] the same still escaped the attention of the trial court and the CA. And while petitioner also overlooked those jurisdictional infirmities and failed to incorporate them as additional issues in its petition, this Court has sufficient authority to pass upon and resolve the same since they affect jurisdiction.[21]
	GR No. 173210 2009-04-24	REPUBLIC v. MACARIA L. TUASTUMBAN TINGA, J.
The governing law for judicial reconstitution of titles is R.A. No. 26. Sections 2[18] and 3[19] of RA 26 enumerate the sources upon which reconstitution should issue. Section 2 refers to source documents for reconstitution of the original certificate of title while Sec. 3 refers to sources for reconstitution of transfer certificates of title. The requirements of Secs. 2 and 3 are almost identical, referring to documents from official sources which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-interest.[20] In Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[21] the Court ruled that "any other document" in Secs. 2(f) and 3(f) of RA 26 refers to documents similar to those previously enumerated therein, that is, those mentioned in Sections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). The Court reiterated this ruling in Heirs of Dizon v. Hon. Discaya[22] and Republic v. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas.[23] The documents alluded to in Secs. 2(f) and 3(f) must be resorted to in the absence of those preceding in order. If the petitioner for reconstitution fails to show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such prior documents and failed to find them, the presentation of the succeeding documents as substitutionary evidence is proscribed.[24]
	GR No. 150741 2008-06-12	REPUBLIC v. SPS. VICENTE LAGRAMADA AND BONIFACIA LAGRAMADA CARPIO, J.
The Court reiterated this ruling in Heirs of Dizon v. Hon. Discaya[9] where the Court declared that "when Section 2(f) of Republic Act No. 26 speaks of `any other document,' the same must refer to similar documents previously enumerated therein, that is, those mentioned in Sections (a), (b), (c), and (d),"[10] and in Republic v. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas.[11]
	GR No. 162097 2008-02-13	LOURDES A. PASCUA v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
We also find insufficient the index of decree showing that Decree No. 365835 was issued for Lot No. 1499, as a basis for reconstitution. We noticed that the name of the applicant as well as the date of the issuance of such decree was illegible. While Decree No. 365835 existed in the Record Book of Cadastral Lots in the Land Registration Authority as stated in the Report submitted by it, however, the same report did not state the number of the original certificate of title, which is not sufficient evidence in support of the petition for reconstitution. The deed of extrajudicial declaration of heirs with sale executed by Aguinaldo and Restituto Tumulak Perez and respondent on February 12, 1979 did not also mention the number of the original certificate of title but only Tax Declaration No. 00393. As we held in Tahanan Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, the absence of any document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title and the date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of such petition.[9] Petitioner argues that since it is incumbent upon the Commissioner of Land Registration to issue a certificate of title pursuant to a court decree, it can be presumed that a certificate of title over Lot No. 3209 was indeed issued when the cadastral court ordered it so on December 4, 1930. Petitioner relied on Rule 131, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court which states the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. This presumption, however, is merely disputable. In this case, the LRA certified that (1) a decree covering Lot No. 3209 was issued, but (2) a copy of the said decree cannot be found on the records. If in fact a certificate of title was issued, a title number could have been mentioned by the LRA. Since the LRA itself made no reference to any certificate of title, the conclusion is that none was issued. More importantly, Limuaco himself stated in the Deed of Absolute Sale that the property he was selling was not registered. Petitioner's evidence, no less, disproves the presumption she relies upon.