Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
182980
Petitioner,
Present:
- versus - CARPIO,
DE CASTRO,
ABAD,
MENDOZA,
SERENO,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:
x-------------------------x
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
x x x.
Issues
II. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in finding that petitioner failed to establish the circumstances which led to the loss of his
duplicate owner’s copy of TCT No. T-16755.
III. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in finding that there is no merit in the motion for new trial filed by petitioner.26
The petition must fail. There can be no reconstitution as the trial court
never acquired jurisdiction over the present case.
Process of Reconstitution of
(d) The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the registry of deeds, containing the description of the property, or an
authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had been registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer
certificate of title was issued;
(e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the description of which is given in said document, is
mortgaged, leased, or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed
certificate of title.
The trial court’s 4 October 2002 Order was indeed posted in the places
mentioned in Section 13, and published twice in successive issues of
the Official Gazette: Volume 99, Number 2 dated 13 January 2003 and
Volume 99, Number 3 dated 20 January 2003. The last issue was
released by the National Printing Office on 21 January 2003.27 The
notice, however, did not state Felisa as a registered co-owner. Neither
did the notice identify Fernando’s siblings Emma andElpidio as
interested parties.
SO ORDERED.
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 1006 dated 10 June 2011.
3 Id. at 44-45.
4 Id. at 40-42.
6 Id. at 15.
7 Id. at 16.
8 Id. at 18.
9 Id. at 19-27.
10 Id. at 28.
11 Id. at 32.
12 Id. at 34-36.
13 Id. at 39.
14 Id. at 41-42.
15 Id. at 46-48.
17 Id. at 3-15.
18 Records, p. 69.
19 Rollo, p. 42.
20 Rollo, p. 38.
22 Id. at 124-125.
23 Id. at 126.
24 Id. at 127-130.
25 Id. at 158-159.
28 Tahanan Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 203 Phil. 652, 681 (1982).
31 Caltex Filipino Managers & Supervisors Ass’n. v. CIR, 131 Phil. 1022, 1030 (1968).
32 Register of Deeds of Malabon v. RTC, Malabon, MM, Br. 170, G.R. No. 88623, 5 February
1990, 181 SCRA 788, citing Pinza v. Aldovino, 134 Phil. 217 (1968).
33 Allama v. Republic, G.R. No. 88226, 26 February 1992, 206 SCRA 600.