ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 159579.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 159579 (Heirs of Don Constancio Guzman, Inc. vs. Hon. Judge Emmanuel Carpio.)
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking
the reversal of the order
[1]
cralaw
dated
The generative facts of this case follow.
On
Petitioner alleges that Constancio Guzman was the owner of
several parcels of land located in Davao
City. Constancio was beheaded by the
Japanese soldiers on
In compliance with the court's order, petitioner caused the publication of each petition in the Official Gazette for two consecutive weeks as well as the posting of copies of the four petitions at the City Hall and Hall of Justice of Davao City.
During the initial hearing on
On July 25, 2002, the Acting Registrar of Deeds of Davao City, Atty. Florenda Patriarca, submitted a report showing that: (1) OCT No. 337 in the name of spouses Constancio Guzman and Isabel Luna had already been cancelled and was the subject of several transfers, the latest being to the Republic of the Philippines; (2) OCT No. 219 in the name of spouses Constancio Guzman and Isabel Luna had likewise been cancelled and, was the subject of several transfers, the latest being in favor of Antonio Arroyo; (3) OCT No. 164 in the name of spouses Constancio Guzman and Isabel Luna was the subject of several transfers and was now registered in the name of Antonio Arroyo; (4) OCT No. 67 in the name of Constancio Guzman alone had also been cancelled and transferred several times, the latest being in the name of Madeline Marfori.
On
On May 12, 2003, the trial court issued an order dismissing all the petitions for reconstitution as it was clear from the report of the Register of Deeds that OCT Nos. 337, 219, 164 and 67 were neither mutilated, destroyed nor lost but were in fact cancelled as a result of voluntary and involuntary transfers.
Hence, this petition.
At the outset, it should be stated that there is here a blatant disregard of the hierarchy of courts and no exceptional or compelling circumstance has been cited by petitioner why direct recourse to this Court should be allowed. In Tano vs. Socrates, [3] cralaw this Court declared that the propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts must be stopped in its tracks, not only because it wastes the precious time of this Court but also because it delays the adjudication of a case which has to be remanded or referred to the proper forum.
Moreover, even if we were to decide the instant case on the merits, the petition would still fail. Reconstitution of certificates of title, within the meaning of RA 26, means the restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. Petitioner failed to prove that the certificates of title intended to be reconstituted were in fact lost or destroyed. On the contrary, the evidence on record reveals that the certificates of title were cancelled on account of various conveyances. In fact, the parcels of land involved were duly registered in the names of the present owners whose acquisition of title can be clearly traced through a series of valid and fully documented transactions.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Judge Emmanuel C. Carpio.
[2] cralaw An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate of Title Lost or Destroyed.
[3] cralaw 278 SCRA 154, [1997].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
