ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 139518.September 17, 2001]

EVANGELINE L. PUZON vs. STA LUCIA REALTY et al

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 17 2001.

G.R. No. 139518(Evangeline L. Puzon vs. Sta Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. and Court of Appeals.)

In its Motion for Reconsideration, private respondent argues that "even if the source for reconstitution is the extant owner's duplicate of title, notices to owners of adjoining lots and actual occupants of the subject property are mandatory and jurisdictional in all petitions for reconstitution of destroyed original certificates of titles."

We agree with petitioner's Comment that this argument is a mere rehash of that already considered by the Court during its deliberations in this case and has been adequately addressed in the Decision, which need not be reproduced here. Even the matter of the Court of Appeals finding on the character of petitioner's TCT has already been considered and addressed in the Decision.

Contrary to movant's contention, our Decision did not contradict Republic v. Court of Appeals. In that case, "the private respondent [therein] and petitioner in LRC Case No. 1077-95 filed with the Regional Trial Court Branch 20, Imus Cavite the reconstitution of lost/burned original copies of Certificate of Titles Nos. T-11203 and T-11204 and for the issuance of new owner's duplicate copies of the same certificates. These were allegedly lost or destroyed when the capitol building was burned." ¹ 309 SCRA. 110, 113. Evidently, the reconstitution of the titles in said case was not based on the original owner's duplicate certificate of title since they were allegedly lost/burned and petitioner was even asking for the issuance of new ones. Neither did the Decision contradict Ortigas & Co., Ltd v. Velasco. It was categorically stated therein that "Molina had nothing but a mere photocopy of a suppositional title as basis for her application for reconstitution..." ² 77 SCRA 342, 365. (italics in the original). Clearly, the reconstitution dealt with in the two cases cited by movant fell under Section 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26. Thus, the same are inapplicable to the present case where the original owner's duplicate copy of the title was the document used as basis and source for the reconstitution and which falls under Sections 9 and 10 of Republic Act No. 26.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration, is hereby DENIED. The prayer to refer the case to the Banc is also DENIED for lack of merit, it being clear that our Decision did not in any manner modify much less overrule any previous Court decision. Basic is the rule that the banc is not an appellate body to which parties which lost in Division decisions may appeal by way of a motion for reconsideration.

This denial is FINAL. No further pleading to modify, alter, reverse, clarify or otherwise seek reconsideration of the foregoing discussion and disposition shall be entertained.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE