Venturanza case on reconstitution: This case filed by the heirs of venturaza for cancellation of a TCT Sec 31, once

a land is registered it binds everyone, what SC said in this section where they anchored their document that their title is indeafisble Sc said yes it is a settled law that is binds the whole land, however supreme court said in this case. Section 31 applies to original registration proceedings and not to reconstitution. They quoted the wrong application of the law. There has to be a titled validly issued in reconstitution, here there is an illegal expansion of an area covering the entire municipality, most of reconstitution cases are works of a syndicate, I personally know, so that is the principle, this one is the same principle but fact is different Pascua vs republic The petitioner here claim she is owner of a land owned by her parents. SC said reconstitution presupposes a prior registered title absence of which. Take note the sources of reconstitution outlined in Sec 2 repbulic act 26: 1. Owners duplicate certificate of title 2. Co-owners copy, or mortgagee copy no longer allowed, here lessess copy title no longer allowed 3. And a certified copy previously issued by registration of deeds 4. Patents. 5. Document in register of deed by which the property is mortgaged, lease or encumber 6. And any other document which the petitioner used in this case

When RA sec 26 speaks of any other documents, used them generis, What was the document represented by Pascua?

A certification from LRA the issuance of the decree, so the issued the land subject matter already decree would be sufficient to prove that a decree was issued, so presumption an OCT is issued. BUT SC cited in ruling it is insuffieciient a disputable presumption, and the SC noted the inconsistency with militates further that deed of absolute sale mention lot 19 not 309, it cast serious doubt, And the tax delaratino did not include a tilte number, and deed of absolute sale not registered, and LRA decree not mention an original title was issued, and so the petition for reconstitution was denied.. Important case: remember nillas case, a decree of registration no matter how long is considered valid, but in reconstitution it must be shown a title is issued, in this case, which is very common, a lot of decrees before the war but no proof an OCT issued, common on cebu city, and lapu2 so what is the remedy in the case, we agree that SC said a decree of registration will always be valid no matter how long, but not here, Decree very accessible , LRA have copies of the decrees The suggest is to file registration , cancel old decree, and issue a new decree, decrees issued before the war usually no proof of OCT issued, so LRA issued an opinion, they ask me also I suggested, 1. File a petition in court for cancellation of this decree 2. And to re-issue new decree BASED on the old decree, The reason behind this the decree of registration shall be the exact copy of the original certificate of title, which is absurd, that a decree issued 1930 signed by commission by that time, and the OCT will bear signature of the present administrator, now, file a petition in court, use the old as basis for the new. Now in this case the petitioners wants to the show the other sources is that decree , but NO bec just a indisputable presumption, and there has to be proof that OCT was granted. New application on issue of estoppel BARSTOWE case.

What was the main issue of this case The republic there was a conflict with regards to the property, the Barstowe

the republic there was a project in quezon a dev center, republic owned this property, but a certain group where successful with the reconstitution of title, the deputy was syndicate, they tried to hide something from me,so now they were dismissied, the group of archival which was spurious, if you show to me, even from a distance I can smell it is spurious, subsequently they sold it now to barstowe phil, they develop this land it was advertise, so many people grab the chance to buy a new development, so that was when the STATE realize there was reconstituted title, they ask help of OSG, but many lands where already sold, so the question as to buyers in good faith of other buyers?so what is the issued? And the the doctrine, spurious title and issued to the innocent purchasers, remember the spring can rise higher than its source, so with this background what happened next? .Why were they considered innocent purchase of value? Remember Generally spring can rise higher than source Except: invalid title can be the root of a valid title, present in this case. Alright what was applied here is equitable estoppel remember Mendoza..

When barstowe had the title , the LRA approved, when applied licenced HLURB issued, In other words all agencies of the government, even register of deeds granted them all the licenses necessary to develop the subdivision project, SC recognized equity. Plaintiff here is the republic but ruled against them. Finally why barstowe buyer in bad faith, because, when there was fire, they sought reconstitution Candy chan read the case; There was no showing owner duplicate of title , without original copy or duplicate, so what was relied was a reconstituted title, Note two kinds of reconstitution so distuinguished.

The reconstituted of title not share characteristic of a original certificate of title, And DBP should be alerted that the titles are reconstituted, there should have been a investigation, but they failed to do so, they are not in good faith.

Other respondents who bought , are purchasers I good faith , estoppel wont lie against them because they fall under the exemption,

Estoppel applied against the government, so innocent purchasers who relied as purchasers in good faith, Take note 2 kinds recon Administrative= exparte only, once issued, it has a restriction for 2 years, so anybody with an interest annotated at the back of original has 2 years to claim, and not carried over in like levy, but not reg of deeds not to determine to reannotate a previously , but for the courts. Judictin= in rem