0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
102 Ansichten2 Seiten
Victorino Viloria claimed ownership of a parcel of land covered by TCT 16156. He applied to reconstitute the title after the duplicate copy was allegedly eaten by termites. The lower court granted reconstitution. However, the Villanuevas, the actual occupants of the land, discovered this in 2002 and petitioned to annul the reconstitution as they possessed the original duplicate title and a deed of sale for the property. The Supreme Court ruled to annul the reconstitution, as the owner's duplicate title was not actually lost but in the Villanuevas' possession, making the reconstituted title void for lack of jurisdiction.
Originalbeschreibung:
Villanueva vs Viloria, GR No. 155804, Mar. 14 2008, 548 SCRA 401
Victorino Viloria claimed ownership of a parcel of land covered by TCT 16156. He applied to reconstitute the title after the duplicate copy was allegedly eaten by termites. The lower court granted reconstitution. However, the Villanuevas, the actual occupants of the land, discovered this in 2002 and petitioned to annul the reconstitution as they possessed the original duplicate title and a deed of sale for the property. The Supreme Court ruled to annul the reconstitution, as the owner's duplicate title was not actually lost but in the Villanuevas' possession, making the reconstituted title void for lack of jurisdiction.
Victorino Viloria claimed ownership of a parcel of land covered by TCT 16156. He applied to reconstitute the title after the duplicate copy was allegedly eaten by termites. The lower court granted reconstitution. However, the Villanuevas, the actual occupants of the land, discovered this in 2002 and petitioned to annul the reconstitution as they possessed the original duplicate title and a deed of sale for the property. The Supreme Court ruled to annul the reconstitution, as the owner's duplicate title was not actually lost but in the Villanuevas' possession, making the reconstituted title void for lack of jurisdiction.
Victorino Viloria claimed that he is the owner of a parcel of land in Iba, Zambales covered by TCT 16156; that he and his wife went to and settled in Ilocos Sur until her wifes death in 1995. In the same year, he discovered that the duplicate copy of the TCT was eaten by termites. He executed an Affidavit of Loss and he applied for reconstitution which the lower court granted. Viloria then sold the land in 2002 and a new TCT was issued to the buyer (Ruben Marty). On the other hand, the spouses Villanueva were the actual occupants of the said land. They came to know of the foregoing only in 2002. They petitioned for the annulment of the reconstitution. They claimed that they are in possession of the duplicate copy of TCT 16156 as well as a Deed of Sale executed in their favor by the late wife of Viloria in 1986. ISSUE: Whether or not to annul the reconstitution of the title. HELD: Yes. If an owners duplicate copy of a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction. Consequently, the decision may be attacked any time. As there is no proof to support actual loss of the said owners duplicate copies of said certificates of title, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction and the new titles issued in replacement thereof are void.