CA-G.R. SP Nos. 70014 and 104604 2DECISION
DE LEON, M.M.
Trial courts should exercise extreme caution in grantingpetitions for reconstitution of land titles, lest they becomeunwitting accomplices in the reconstitution of questionable landtitles, instead of being instruments in promoting the stability of our system of land registration.
Strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the law in the reconstitution of atitle is vital, especially when the titles sought to be reconstitutedpurportedly cover vast tracts of land, as in the instant case.
Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements forreconstitution, jurisdiction over the petition is not acquired.Consequently, when a court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizanceof a case, it lacks authority over the whole case and all itsaspects
and any proceeding had or any judgment, order, writ, orprocess emanating from said court is null and void and of noforce and effect.
Nature of the Consolidated Cases
CA-G.R. SP No. 70014
is a petition
under Section 9(2) of the Judicial Reorganization Act of 1980
and Rule 47 of the Rulesof Court, filed by the Republic of the Philippines (“Republic”)through the Office of the Solicitor General (“OSG”), seeking theannulment of the following alleged decisions/ orders/ writs/ otherdocuments which were ordered reconstituted and, subsequently,
Republic of the Philippines vs. Planes
, G.R. No. 130433, April 17, 2002, 382 SCRA215.
In this case, TCT No. 408 alone, which was reconstituted by the Deputy Register of Deeds of Rizal Province on December 14, 2001, purportedly covers
1,252,763,700(ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO MILLION SEVEN HUNDREDSIXTY-THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED) square meters
of Metro Manila.
Pinza vs. Aldovino
, No. L-25226, September 27, 1968, 25 SCRA 220.
Also known as “OSG Petition.”
B.P. 129, as amended.