Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EVANGELINE L. PUZON v. STA. LUCIA REALTY

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 194066 2014-06-04	REPUBLIC v. FRANKLIN M. MILLADO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The nature of judicial reconstitution proceedings is the restoration of an instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition.[14] The purpose of the reconstitution of title or any document is to have the same reproduced, after proper proceedings in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred.[15]
	GR No. 162097 2008-02-13	LOURDES A. PASCUA v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
In sum, we are not persuaded that petitioner's pieces of evidence warrant the reconstitution of title since she failed to prove the existence of the title in the first place. The purpose of reconstitution of title is to have the original title reproduced in the same form it was when it was lost or destroyed.[11] In this case, there is no title to be re-issued. The appellate and trial courts were correct in denying Pascua's petition. We emphasize that courts must be cautious in granting reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of titles. It is the duty of the trial court to scrutinize and verify carefully all supporting documents, deeds, and certifications. Each and every fact, circumstance, or incident which corroborates or relates to the existence and loss of the title should be examined.[12]
	GR NO. 149190 2006-12-19	FELICISIMO L. OPRIASA v. CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY CARPIO, J.
[20] G.R. No. 139518, 6 March 2001, 353 SCRA 699, 711-712.
	GR NO. 146081 2006-07-17	REPUBLIC v. SPS. ROBERTO AND MARINA SANCHEZ CARPIO, J.
Respondents are correct in saying that the service of notice of the petition for reconstitution filed under RA 26 to the occupants of the property, owners of the adjoining properties, and all persons who may have any interest in the property is not required if the petition is based on the owner's duplicate certificate of title or on that of the co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's. This was our ruling in Puzon v. Sta Lucia Realty and Development, Inc.,[18] involving a petition filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, ("Branch 80") for reconstitution of the original of two Torrens certificates of title based on Puzon's duplicate certificates of title. We held in that case:[T]he first sentence of Section 13 provides that the requirements therein pertain only to petitions for reconstitution filed under "the preceding section," Section 12, which in turn governs those petitions based on specified sources. We quote Section 12 below:
	GR NO. 149041 2006-07-12	HEIRS OF ROLANDO N. ABADILLA v. GREGORIO B. GALAROSA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The nature of judicial reconstitution proceedings is the restoration of an instrument or the reissuance of a new duplicate certificate of title which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition.[33] Its purpose is to have the title reproduced after proper proceedings in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred and not to pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title.[34] Possession of a lost certificate of title is not the same as ownership of the land covered by it, and the certificate does not vest ownership but merely evinces title over a particular property.[35] Indeed, registering land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title because registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership.[36]
	GR NO. 166139 2006-06-20	REPUBLIC v. PEDRO T. CASIMIRO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The existence of respondent's owner's duplicate of TCT No. 305917 having been satisfactorily established, then the other documents he presented in support of his Petition for Reconstitution before the RTC are merely corroborating or parol evidence. It bears to emphasize that the basis for the reconstitution of TCT No. 305917 is Section 3(a) of Rep. Act No. 26,[42] thus, its jurisdictional requirements are governed by Section 10 of the same statute.[43]
	GR No. 130433 2002-04-17	REPUBLIC v. MAXIMO I. PLANES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Southern's motion for leave to intervene basically on the ground that being an owner of several parcels of land involved here, it was not notified of the proceedings below, must be denied. In the fairly recent case of Puzon vs. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc.,[39] penned by Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, this Court ruled that notices to owners of adjoining lots and actual occupants of the subject property are not mandatory and jurisdictional in petition for judicial reconstitution of destroyed original certificate of title when the source for such reconstitution is the owner's duplicate copy thereof. In decreeing so, this Court relied on the following reasons:"In the present case, the source of the reconstitution of petitioner's TCT is the extant owner's copy, which falls under Section 3 (a). It follows that the applicable provision of law is Section 10 in relation to Section 9 of RA 26, not Sections 12 and 13. When the reconstitution is based on an extant owner's duplicate TCT, the main concern is the authenticity and genuineness of the Certificate, which could best be determined or contested by the government agencies or offices concerned, principally the Office of the Solicitor General. The adjoining owners or actual occupants of the property covered by the TCT are hardly in a position to determine the genuineness of the Certificate. Giving them notice and inviting them to participate in the reconstitution proceeding is not only illogical, but constitutes a useless effort to clog the dockets of courts.