Case Digest (G.R. No. 253305)
Facts:
Marcelino Dela Paz (Marcelino) filed a verified petition for judicial reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 206714 on 5 June 2007 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 220 of Quezon City (RTC). The petition concerned a parcel of land in Quezon City described as Lot 457-A-12-B-2-B-2-A, with boundaries and technical description stated in the verified petition, and involving the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-2114428, which was allegedly a portion of Lot 457-A-12-B-2-B-2 (LRC) Psd-1774344. Marcelino alleged that the original copy of TCT No. 206714 was destroyed by a fire that razed the Quezon City Hall building on 11 June 1988 and that the owner’s duplicate copy was lost as evidenced by an affidavit of loss duly registered and recorded with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. He invoked an extrajudicial settlement dated 23 October 2000 among the heirs of Luz Dela Paz, namely, Franklin S. Bortado, Sr., Franklin P. Bortado, Jr., and Marylou Bortado, and stated tha...Case Digest (G.R. No. 253305)
Facts:
Marcelino Dela Paz filed a verified petition for reconstitution of TCT No. 206714 covering a Quezon City parcel of land, alleging that the original copy was destroyed in the 11 June 1988 fire that razed the Quezon City Hall and that the owner’s duplicate was lost, with such facts allegedly supported by an affidavit of loss and other documents. The RTC, Branch 220 of Quezon City granted the petition and ordered the reconstitution of the title in the name of Luz Dela Paz and issuance of a second owner’s duplicate to Marcelino, relying on the approved subdivision plan and technical description submitted.On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the petition, holding that the evidence did not amount to competent proof of the legal and jurisdictional requirements under R.A. No. 26, and that the materials submitted could not properly serve as sources for reconstitution. Marcelino’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether Marcelino presented competent proof that TCT No. 206714 could be reconstituted under R.A. No. 26.
- Whether the documents submitted—such as an extrajudicial settlement, deed of absolute sale, loss affidavit, photocopy of the title, tax declarations, and a plan/technical description—constituted acceptable sources and evidence for reconstitution.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)