Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REMEGIA Y. FELICIANO v. SPS. AURELIO AND LUZ ZALDIVAR

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 205065 2014-06-04	VERGEL PAULINO v. CA MENDOZA, J.
As early as the case of Strait Times, Inc. v. CA,[18] the Court has held 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 be validly made only in case of loss of the original certificate.[19] This rule was reiterated in the cases of Villamayor v. Arante,[20] Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[21] Eastworld Motor Industries Corporation v. Skunac Corporation,[22] Rodriguez v. Lim,[23] Villanueva v. Viloria,[24] and Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation.[25] Thus, with evidence that the original copy of the TCT was not lost during the conflagration that hit the Quezon City Hall and that the owner's duplicate copy of the title was actually in the possession of another, the RTC decision was null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
	GR No. 177042 2012-12-10	SPS. CRISANTO ALCAZAR AND SUSANA VILLAMAYOR v. EVELYN ARANTE PERALTA, J.
Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of loss of the original certificate.[35] This rule was later reiterated in the cases of Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[36] Eastworld Motor Industries Corporation v. Skunac Corporation,[37] Rodriguez v. Lim,[38] Villanueva v. Viloria[39] and Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation.[40] Thus, with proof and with the admission of petitioners that the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT was actually in the possession of respondent, the RTC Decision was properly annulled for lack of jurisdiction.
	GR No. 167232 2009-07-31	D.B.T. MAR-BAY CONSTRUCTION v. RICAREDO PANES NACHURA, J.
Thus, respondents' claim of acquisitive prescription over the subject property is baseless. Under Article 1126 of the Civil Code, acquisitive prescription of ownership of lands registered under the Land Registration Act shall be governed by special laws. Correlatively, Act No. 496, as amended by PD No. 1529, provides that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by adverse possession. Consequently, in the instant case, proof of possession by the respondents is immaterial and inconsequential.[58]
	GR No. 151424 2008-07-04	EAGLE REALTY CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC NACHURA, J.
The principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply where fraud attended the issuance of the title. The Torrens title does not furnish a shield for fraud. As such, a title issued based on void documents may be annulled.[31] Moreover, elementary is the rule that prescription does not run against the State and its subdivisions.[32]
	GR No. 163684 2008-04-16	FAUSTINA CAMITAN and DAMASO LOPEZ v. FIDELITY INVESTMENT CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
With proof that the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT was in the possession of Fidelity, the RTC Decision dated April 8, 1994 was properly annulled. In a catena of cases, we have consistently ruled that if an owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void, as the court rendering the decision never acquires jurisdiction. Consequently, the decision may be attacked at any time.[14]
	GR NO. 150654 2007-12-13	HEIRS OF ANACLETO B. NIETO v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN NACHURA, J.
Moreover, case law teaches that if the claimant's possession of the land is merely tolerated by its lawful owner, the latter's right to recover possession is never barred by laches. Even if it be supposed that petitioners were aware of respondent's occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand the return of their property at any time as long as the possession was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all.[20]