Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELIZABETH LEE v. REPUBLIC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173210 2009-04-24	REPUBLIC v. MACARIA L. TUASTUMBAN TINGA, J.
The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land. The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction occurred.[28] RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is sought to be reconstituted has already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens System.[29]
	GR No. 155703 2008-09-08	REPUBLIC v. DOMINADOR SANTUA NACHURA, J.
The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land.[8] It partakes of a land registration proceeding.[9] Thus, it must be granted only upon clear proof that the title sought to be restored was indeed issued to the petitioner.[10] In this regard, Section 3 of Republic Act (RA) No. 26 enumerates the documents regarded as valid and sufficient bases for reconstitution of a transfer certificate of title:SEC. 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
	GR No. 158230 2008-07-16	REPUBLIC v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ROXAS CITY CARPIO, J.
On 7 September 1993, Elizabeth and Pacita (private respondents) filed a petition for reconstitution of title of Lot No. 398 because the records of the Register of Deeds, Roxas City were burned during the war. On 3 October 2001, the Court held that the trial court's order of reconstitution was void for lack of factual support because it was based merely on the plan and technical description approved by the Land Registration Authority.[5]
	GR NO. 142766 2007-06-15	NARCISO AMOROSO v. JUAN ALEGRE TINGA, J.
Petitioner claims in his petition that the 3 October 1957 Decision resolved the issue of ownership of the lots and declared in the body of the decision that he had "sufficiently proven uncontroverted facts that he had been in possession of the land in question since 1946 x x x [and] has been in possession of the property with sufficient title."[39] However, such findings made by the CFI in the said decision are mere obiter, since the ownership of the properties, titles to which were sought to be reconstituted, was never the issue in the reconstitution case. Ownership is not the issue in a petition for reconstitution of title. A reconstitution of title does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title.[40]
	GR No. 133250 2003-05-06	FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY CARPIO, J.
Thus, the Court has ruled consistently that where a Filipino citizen sells land to an alien who later sells the land to a Filipino, the invalidity of the first transfer is corrected by the subsequent sale to a citizen.[9] Similarly, where the alien who buys the land subsequently acquires Philippine citizenship, the sale is validated since the purpose of the constitutional ban to limit land ownership to Filipinos has been achieved.[10] In short, the law disregards the constitutional disqualification of the buyer to hold land if the land is subsequently transferred to a qualified party, or the buyer himself becomes a qualified party. In the instant case, however, Amari has not transferred the Freedom Islands, or any portion of it, to any qualified party. In fact, Amari admits that title to the Freedom Islands still remains with PEA.[11]