Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEDRO GABRIEL v. MURMURAY JAMIAS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179685 2013-06-19	CONRADA O. ALMAGRO v. SPS. MANUEL AMAYA VELASCO JR., J.
In Mercado v. Mercado[33] and Gabriel v. Jamias,[34] the Court has ruled that the mere issuance of an EP does not put the ownership of ARBs beyond attack and scrutiny. EPs issued to such beneficiaries may be corrected and canceled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. In fact, DAR AO No. 02, Series of 1994, lists and defines the grounds for cancellation of registered EPs or Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA). Among these are: Grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs or CLOAs may include but not be limited to the following:
	GR No. 169913 2011-06-08	HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
In the same vein, if the illegality in the issuance of the CLTs is patent, the Court must immediately take action and declare the issuance as null and void. There being no question that the CLTs in the instant case were "improperly issued, for which reason, their cancellation is warranted."[70] The same holds true with respect to the EPs and certificates of title issued by virtue of the void CLTs, as there can be no valid transfer of title should the CLTs on which they were grounded are void.[71] Cancellation of the EPs and OCTs are clearly warranted in the instant case since, aside from the violation of petitioners' right to due process of law, the subject property is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program.
	GR No. 169913 2011-06-08	HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
On the contrary, in the instant case, the petition for nullification of private respondents' EPs and OCTs was filed on February 28, 2002. Taking into account that the EPs and OCTs were issued on August 1, 2001 and October 1, 2001, respectively, the filing of the petition was well within the prescribed one year period, thus, barring the defense of indefeasibility and incontrovertibility. Even if the petition was filed before the DARAB, and not the Regional Trial Court as mandated by Sec. 32 of the Property Registration Decree,[83] this should necessarily have the same effect, considering that DARAB's jurisdiction extends to cases involving the cancellation of CLOAs, EPs, and even of certificates of title issued by virtue of a void EP. As this Court held in Gabriel v. Jamias:[84]