Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 131 views

    23 ST Mary Crusade Foundation, Inc V Riel PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    The petitioner filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of a lost Original Certificate of Title and issuance of a new one, claiming the original was lost in a fire. The respondent judge dismissed the petition after receiving a report from LRA recommending dismissal. The petitioner filed petitions for certiorari and mandamus, which were dismissed. The court ruled the petitions lacked merit because the respondent judge did not lack or exceed jurisdiction in dismissing the original petition, nor was there grave abuse of discretion, as the land was already registered under another party. The RTC had proper jurisdiction and authority to act on the original petition for reconstitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    23 ST Mary Crusade Foundation, Inc V Riel PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    131 views1 page
    The petitioner filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of a lost Original Certificate of Title and issuance of a new one, claiming the original was lost in a fire. The respondent judge dismissed the petition after receiving a report from LRA recommending dismissal. The petitioner filed petitions for certiorari and mandamus, which were dismissed. The court ruled the petitions lacked merit because the respondent judge did not lack or exceed jurisdiction in dismissing the original petition, nor was there grave abuse of discretion, as the land was already registered under another party. The RTC had proper jurisdiction and authority to act on the original petition for reconstitution.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    23 St Mary Crusade Foundation, Inc v Riel.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of a lost Original Certificate of Title and issuance of a new one, claiming the original was lost in a fire. The respondent judge dismissed the petition after receiving a report from LRA recommending dismissal. The petitioner filed petitions for certiorari and mandamus, which were dismissed. The court ruled the petitions lacked merit because the respondent judge did not lack or exceed jurisdiction in dismissing the original petition, nor was there grave abuse of discretion, as the land was already registered under another party. The RTC had proper jurisdiction and authority to act on the original petition for reconstitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    131 views1 page

    23 ST Mary Crusade Foundation, Inc V Riel PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    The petitioner filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of a lost Original Certificate of Title and issuance of a new one, claiming the original was lost in a fire. The respondent judge dismissed the petition after receiving a report from LRA recommending dismissal. The petitioner filed petitions for certiorari and mandamus, which were dismissed. The court ruled the petitions lacked merit because the respondent judge did not lack or exceed jurisdiction in dismissing the original petition, nor was there grave abuse of discretion, as the land was already registered under another party. The RTC had proper jurisdiction and authority to act on the original petition for reconstitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    St. Mary Crusade Foundation, Inc.

    v Riel
    745 SCRA 60

    FACTS:
    The petitioner applied for the judicial reconstitution of Original Certifiacte of Title (OCT) No.
    1609 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and for the issuance of a new OCT in place thereof
    claiming that the original copy had been burnt and lost in the fire that gutted the Quezon City
    Register of Deeds in the late 80’s. The petitioner did not present a Torrens title to be
    reconstituted but only a Deed of Transfer and Conveyance.
    The respondent Acting Presiding Judge dismissed the petition for reconstitution after receiving
    a report from Land Registration Authority (LRA) recommending its dismissal, and considering
    the Opposition filed by the Republic of the Philippines and the University of the Philippines.
    Petitioner moved for reconsideration of dismissal but this was denied, hence the petition for
    certiorari.

    ISSUE: WoN the petition for certiorari and mandamus are proper

    RULING:
    No. The petitions for certiorari and mandamus, being devoid of procedural and substantive
    merit, is dismissed.
    Firstly, certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, is granted only under the conditions defined
    by the Rules of Court.
    The conditions are that:
    (1) the respondent tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
    has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
    amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
    (2) there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
    of law.
    Without jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority; there is excess of
    jurisdiction when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority; grave
    abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be
    equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or
    despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so
    patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to
    perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
    The petition for certiorari and mandamus did not show how respondent Judge could have been
    guilty of lacking or exceeding his jurisdiction, or could have gravely abused his discretion
    amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 26, the law on
    the judicial reconstitution of a Torrens title, the Regional Trial Court (as the successor of the
    Court of First Instance) had the original and exclusive jurisdiction to act on the petition for
    judicial reconstitution of title.
    Hence, the RTC neither lacked nor exceeded its authority in acting on and dismissing the petition.
    Nor did respondent Judge gravely abuse his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
    considering that the petition for reconstitution involved land already registered in the name of
    the UP, as confirmed by the LRA. Instead, it would have been contrary to law had respondent
    Judge dealt with and granted the petition for judicial reconstitution of title of the petitioner.

    You might also like