You are on page 1of 1

Heirs of Abadilla vs Galarosa The court ordered the re issuance of the land title which was burned, destroyed

or lost when the registry of deeds was gutted in fire on June 11, 1988.

Straight times inc. vs. CA and Penalosa


It is judicially settled that a trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title, if the original is in fact not lost but is in the possession of an alleged buyer. Corollarily, such reconstituted certificate is itself void once the existence of the original is unquestionably demonstrated. Nonetheless, the nullity of the reconstituted certificate does not by itself settle the issue of ownership or title over the property; much less does it vest such title upon the holder of the original certificate. The issue of ownership must be litigated in appropriate proceedings. It cannot be determined in an action for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title or in proceedings to annul such newly issued duplicate.

In the case of Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, where this Court was faced with the same facts and issue, therein respondent Pealosa filed a petition for the issuance of a new owners duplicate certificate of title. He alleged therein that his copy was lost and was not pledged or otherwise delivered to any person or entity to guaranty any obligation or for any purpose. When the trial court issued a new owners duplicate title, therein petitioner Strait Times, Inc filed a petition to annul judgment based on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Strait Times, Inc. claimed that Pealosa misrepresented before the trial court that the said owners duplicate copy of the title was lost when in fact it was in the possession of the former pursuant to a contract of sale between Pealosa and a certain Conrado Callera. Callera later sold the lot represented by the alleged lost title to therein petitioner Strait Times, Inc.

Demetriou vs CA if an owners duplicate copy of a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction. Consequently, the decision may be attacked any time.
The appellate court is certainly right in holding that the use of a false affidavit of loss does not constitute extrinsic fraud to warrant the invalidation of a final judgment. The use of the alleged false affidavit of loss by private respondent is similar to the use during trial or forged instruments or perjured testimony