heirs of pedro pinote vs dulay 187 scra 12

RTC
ISSUE: one of the co-owners applied for petition for reconstitution of the orig
inal certificate
Other co-owners (the hiers) did not received a copy of the notice of the hearing
DECISION: RTC granted the petition for reconstitution of the original certifica
te but it there was changes of names Petra and putting in Pedro instead as one o
f the co-owners
the heirs filed filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order, and sou
ght the re-opening of the proceedings and the rectification of the order
the court issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration on the ground t
hat During the hearing of this petition, no opposition was registered thereto an
d the evidence adduced by the petitioner
COURT OF APPEALS
The Heirs filed a notice of appeal in CA. they filed an urgent ex parte motion f
or extension of time to file record on appeal
the court denied due course to the appeal on the ground of tardiness (15days to
appeal) as the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, which the court declared
to be pro forma, did not suspend the finality of the lower court's order.
SUPREME COURT
petition for mandamus and/or certiorari filed by the heirs of Pedro Pinote prayi
ng that respondent court be ordered to give due course to their appeal or to ame
nd the order of June 7, 1979, by striking out Petra and putting in Pedro instead
as one of the co-owners
(1)
whether the petitioners' appeal is timely; and
(2)
whether the reconstitution proceedings should be reopened and the order
of reconstitution dated June 7, 1979 should be rectified or amended.
>> First, because the petitioners' appeal was not tardy. Their motion for recons
ideration of the order dated June 7, 1979 was not pro forma because they ask to
change the name of Petra to that of Pedro Pinote"
-They filed a notice of appeal, cash appeal bond and a motion for extension of t
ime to file a record on appeal on January 4, 1980 or 24 days later, with two (2)
or more days of the appeal period to spare. Their record on appeal was actually
filed on January 8, 1980, within the 10-day extension which they sought from th
e court (p. 29, Rollo).i t c-asl Clearly, their appeal was seasonably filed.
DECISION:
The registered owners (or their heirs) had not been individually notifie
d of the filing of Otto's petition for reconstitution. lower court's order IS A
NNULED and The respondent court is ordered to reopen the proceeding for reconsti
tution of the title

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Manila Railroad Co. vs. Moya, et al., 14 SCRA 358
NOTES: Under R.A. No. 26, reconstitution is validly made only in case

the original copy of the certificate of title with the Register of Deeds
is lost or destroyed. And if no notice of the date of hearing of a
reconstitution case is served on a possessor or one having interest in
the property involved, he is deprived of his day in court and the
order of reconstitution is null and void. (Manila Railroad Co. vs.
Moya, et al., 14 SCRA 358).
RTC
the Manila Railroad Company filed with the Court of First Instance of Camarines
Sur a petition to reconstitute Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 38 and 42 co
vering three parcels of land situated in the municipalities of Baao and Bula, Ca
marines Sur.The petitioner submitted plans and technical descriptions of the pro
perties as the basis for the requested reconstitution.
After the publication the petition was granted BY RTC
respondent Consuelo L. Vda. de Prieto filed a motion to set aside the order gran
ting reconstitution stating that she was never served with notice of the petitio
n filed by the Manila Railroad Company, otherwise, she would have appeared to op
pose the same with respect to Lot 2, II-3331, Amd. 2, containing an area of 259,
610 square meters Mauro Prieto, was never sold to the Manila Railroad Company; t
hat it was only Lot 1, II-3331, Amd. 2 .
upon the the submission of evidence from both parties the court set aside the de
cision to geanting Manila Railraodd co's petition. rtc SET ASIDE IT'S DECISION
CA
Motion for reconsideration of the order of October 4, 1960 having been denied by
the lower court was filed, petition was denied
SC
the Manila Railroad Company has filed this petition seeking to annul the said o
rder. petition for certiorari and prohibition
decision:
that notice by publication is not sufficient under the circumstances. Notice mus
t be actually sent or delivered to parties affected by the petition for reconsti
tution. The order of reconstitution
the order of the lower court setting aside its order of reconstitution is hereby
affirmed. Writ denied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
ESSO STANDARD EASTERN INC.vs.ALFONSO LIM,
RTC
Acting upon the verified petition OF Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. dated August 26
, 1955, filed in the above- entitled case for the reconstitution of the alleged
lost or destroyed Original Certificate
Earlier, on January 28, 1930, in a deed of sale duly executed, notarized, and re
gistered, Leon Rivera and Angel Salanga for Standard Oil Company of New York hic
h was the predecessor corporation of Standard Vacuum Oil Company which in turn w
as the predecessor corporation of Esso Standard Eastern, Inc.
The petition for reconstitution was granted by the Court of First Instance of La
Union. The Standard Vacuum Oil Co., was issued a reconstituted Original Certifi
cate of Title No. RO-2321(N.A.).

CA
On July 2, 1963, appellee Esso Standard Eastern, InC. now named Petrophil, form
erly known under the corporate name Standard Vacuum Oil Co. (successor-in-intere
st of Standard Oil Co. of New York) filed a complaint against appellant Alfonso
Lim for accion publiciana
(Accion publiciana is a plenary action for recovery of possession in an ordinary
civil proceeding, in order to determine the better and legal right to possess,
independently of title)
alleged fact that in or prior to 1955, without its knowledge and consent, the ap
pellant began occupying a portion measuring three-fourths (3/4), more or less, o
f that parcel of land in question)
In the complaint, the appellee anchored its cause of action upon the alleged fac
t that in or prior to 1955, without its knowledge and consent, the appellant beg
an occupying a portion measuring three-fourths (3/4), more or less, of that parc
el of land in question. The appellee also asserted that the appellant had unlawf
ully withheld possession of the property to its damage and prejudice.
appellant Alfonso Lim filed Civil Case No. 2162 for the annulment of the reconst
ituted Original Certificate of Title No. RO-2321 issued in favor of the appellee
and for declaration as the lawful and rightful owner of the property in questio
n by prescriptive acquisition.
appellant has been in actual possession and occupation of the above- described p
arcel of land for more than seventeen (17) years and has religiously and faithfu
lly paid the real estate taxes due on said land under Tax Declaration.
appellant Alfonso Lim filed a motion to receive additional evidence on the groun
d of newly discovered evidence ALSO complaint in intervention filed by the Repub
lic of the Philippines is also dismissed in its entirety
All complaints dismissed by CA.
SC
ISSUES
1. lower court erred in reconstitution of title
2.lower court erred in declaring land in question to be the same
3.lower court erred in declaring ESSO is the registered owner of the original ce
rtificate
4. lower court erred in overlooking and failing to apply the principle of laches
against appellee Esso
5. lower court erred in not admitting new evidence
6.The lower Court erred in not declaring appellant Alfonso Lim, the rightful own
er of the property in question, having acquired the same by acquisitive prescrip
tion
7. The lower Court erred in holding that appellant Alfonso Lim was liable to pay
appellee the amount of P100.00 a month by way of rentals.
8. The lower Court erred in rendering judgment for attorney's fees in the amount
of P 10,000.00 in favor of appellee.
9. The lower Court erred in holding that appellant Alfonso Lim is not a possesso
r in good faith and therefore not entitled to the amount of P150,000.00 as indem
nity for the improvements introduced on the land in question.

decision

We find them without merit.

To support his first assignment of error, the
itution proceeding, a valid record, document,
reconstituted must clearly be shown to exist
i-judicial body has the authority to render a
itution

appellant argues that in a reconst

title or other matter sought to be
for otherwise, no judicial or quas
decision or order for such reconst

"for purposes of prescription, just title must be proved; it is never presumed.

The intervenor-appellant's argument that the land was abandoned and therefore be
longs to the public domain has no merit. The land was titled in 1933. The burnin
g of the Standard Vacuum building in Manila during World War II and the destruct
ion of the title did not constitute abandonment.