Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • REPUBLIC VS CAMACHO LTD

    Uploaded by

    Marianne Domingo
    32 views16 pages
    The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration of a trial court decision granting Camacho's petition for reconstitution of an original certificate of title for two parcels of land. The Republic argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the notice of hearing failed to specify important details about the certificate of title as required by law. The Court of Appeals denied the motion. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the trial court did not acquire proper jurisdiction since the notice did not state the certificate of title number or names of interested parties as mandated. The petition for reconstitution was therefore dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    REPUBLIC VS CAMACHO ltd

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration of a trial court decision granting Camacho's petition for reconstitution of an original certificate of title for two parcels of land. The Republic argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the notice of hearing failed to specify important details about the certificate of title as required by law. The Court of Appeals denied the motion. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the trial court did not acquire proper jurisdiction since the notice did not state the certificate of title number or names of interested parties as mandated. The petition for reconstitution was therefore dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    32 views16 pages

    REPUBLIC VS CAMACHO LTD

    Uploaded by

    Marianne Domingo
    The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration of a trial court decision granting Camacho's petition for reconstitution of an original certificate of title for two parcels of land. The Republic argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the notice of hearing failed to specify important details about the certificate of title as required by law. The Court of Appeals denied the motion. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the trial court did not acquire proper jurisdiction since the notice did not state the certificate of title number or names of interested parties as mandated. The petition for reconstitution was therefore dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 16

    REPUBLIC VS CAMACHO

    FACTS: RESPONDENT CAMACHO FILED A PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION AND ISSUANCE OF OWNER’S DUPLICATE COPY WITH THE RTC FOR TWO
    PARCELS OF LAND COVERED BY AN OCT BY VIRTUE OF DEED OF EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION WITH ABSOLUTE SALE EXECUTED BY THE HEIRS OF SPS
    LAPITAN. UPON FILING AN AMENDED PETITION, HE PRAYED AS WELL TO BE ISSUED A SECOND OWNER’S DUPLICATE COPY IN LIEU OF THE OLD
    ONE. Prior to the proceeding, respondent filed a second amended petition.

    RTC SET THE PROCEEDING FOR THE PETITION AND AFTER THE HEARING RENDERED GRANT FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE OCT FOR THE LANDS
    SUBJECT OF THIS CASE.

    PETITIONER REPUBLIC THROUGH THE OSG FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT HIMSELF DOES NOT KNOW
    ITS NUMBER AND THAT ON THE DEED, TAX DEC AND ROD CERTITICATE OF TITLE ALL INDICATED THAT THE NUMBER ON THE OCT IS NOT LEGIBLE.

    RESPONDENT ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THE DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS THE PAROL EVIDENCE HE ADDUCED ARE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT
    RECONSTITUTION OF THE OCT AND THAT THERE IS A VALID TITLE THUS THERE IS A LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE
    COPY OF THE RECONSTITUTED TITLE.

    NEVERTHELESS, THE MR FILED BY THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED BY BOTH THE TRIAL COURT AND CA.

    Issue: whether the RTC properly acquired and was invested with jurisdiction in the first place to hear and decide Land Registration Case in the light of the strict and mandatory
    provisions of R.A. No. 26.
    HELD: NEGATIVE. The
    RTC did not acquire
    jurisdiction to proceed with
    the case since the
    mandatory manner or
    mode of obtaining
    jurisdiction as prescribed
    by R.A. No. 26 had not been
    strictly followed, thereby
    rendering the proceedings
    utterly null and void. THE
    NATURE OF THE
    RECONSTITUTION
    PROCEEDING UNDER
    RA 26 DENOTES a
    restoration of the
    instrument, which is
    supposed to have been lost
    or destroyed, in its original
    form and condition. The
    same R.A. No. 26 specifies
    the requisites to be met for
    the trial court to acquire
    jurisdiction over a petition
    for reconstitution of a
    certificate of title.  Failure
    to comply with any of these
    jurisdictional requirements
    for a petition for
    reconstitution renders the
    proceedings null and void.
    The Court took note that
    while the CA invoked the
    appropriate provisions of
    R.A. No. 26, it failed,
    however, to take note that
    Section 9 thereof
    mandatorily requires that
    the notice shall specify,
    among other things, the
    number of the certificate of
    title – the oct merely
    identified as “OCT no (not
    legible) and the names of
    the interested parties
    appearing in the
    reconstituted certificate of
    title. In this case, the RTC
    failed to indicate these
    jurisdictional facts in the
    notice.
    Notice of hearing failed to
    state the names of
    interested parties appearing
    in the OCT sough to be
    reconstituted, particularly
    the adjoining owners.
    While it is true that notices
    need not be sent to the
    adjoining owners in this
    case since this is not
    required under Sections 9
    and 10 of R.A. No. 26 as
    enunciated in a case, it is
    imperative, however, that
    the notice should specify the
    names of said interested
    parties so named in the title
    sought to be reconstituted.
    In this case, the respondent’s quest for judicial reconstitution in this case is anchored on the owner’s duplicate copy of said OCT – a source for reconstitution of title provided
    under Section 2 (a) of RA 26.

    Review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 31, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87390 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  The petition for
    reconstitution docketed as LRC No. V-0016, RTC, Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50, is DISMISSED.

    You might also like