,

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library






CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY




On-Line Bar Review

cralaw_chanroblesbar

MCLE:

cralaw_lawnet

DebtKollect

cralaw_debkollect

Intellectual Property

cralaw_iplaw
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 

Bookmark and Share

This web page features the full text of
CIRCULAR NO. 38-97.
CIRCULAR NO. 38-97
    
TO:  REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS  

SUBJECT:  CLARIFICATION OF THE EXTENT OF DELEGATED JURISDICTION UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 6-93-A OF MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs AND MCTCs TO HEAR AND DETERMINE CADASTRAL AND LAND REGISTRATION CASES.  
   
Numerous queries from the Courts concerned have been received by the Court Administrator regarding the scope of the delegated jurisdiction under Administrative Circular No. 6-93-A of MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs AND MCTCs to hear and determine cadastral and land registration cases, particularly as to whether or not the delegation covers petitions and motions for reconstitution of lost certificate of title.  

The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 6-93-A is that only original cadastral or land registration cases are covered. The jurisdiction of the First Level Courts, being merely delegated, should be limited to what is expressly mentioned in the delegation.  

1. There are limits to the delegation, i.e., either the subject matter is an uncontested lot or if contested the value of the lot should not exceed One hundred thousand [P100,000.00] Pesos. There will be difficulty in the determination of these limits if and when the First Level Courts are required to exercise delegated jurisdiction over petitions subsequent to original registration.     2. A First Level Court should not be placed in a situation where, in disposing of a matter subsequent to registration, it will have to consult the records of another Court, which granted the original registration.  

3. To require First Level Courts to handle petitions after original registration would unduly increase their dockets already loaded with cases covered by R. A. 7691, the law on their expanded jurisdiction.cralaw

Therefore, matters subsequent to the original registration determined by Second Level Courts, including petitions for reconstitution of lost titles, should not be unloaded to the Firts Level Courts. The Second Level Courts are hereby directed to take cognizance of and exercise jurisdiction over such matters.
    

June 20, 1997.

  
 

[Sgd.] ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO
Court Administrator  
Back to Top   -  Back to Home   -  Back to Main Index