Scribd
Upload
57 views1 page

20681-R. Citing The Second Paragraph of Section 31 of P.D. No. 1529

The document discusses a legal case regarding a reconstituted land title certificate (TCT No. RT-40 (140)) that petitioners claim became indefeasible after one year when the Court of Appeals granted its reconstitution. Petitioners cite provisions from the Land Registration Act and Presidential Decree No. 1529 that the decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject to certain exceptions. However, the document states that petitioners are wrong because the provisions relied on refer to original decrees of registration, not orders of reconstitution. Therefore, the two lower courts were not without authority to annul TCT No. 2574 that was issued.

Uploaded by

Dales Batoctoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
57 views1 page

20681-R. Citing The Second Paragraph of Section 31 of P.D. No. 1529

The document discusses a legal case regarding a reconstituted land title certificate (TCT No. RT-40 (140)) that petitioners claim became indefeasible after one year when the Court of Appeals granted its reconstitution. Petitioners cite provisions from the Land Registration Act and Presidential Decree No. 1529 that the decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject to certain exceptions. However, the document states that petitioners are wrong because the provisions relied on refer to original decrees of registration, not orders of reconstitution. Therefore, the two lower courts were not without authority to annul TCT No. 2574 that was issued.

Uploaded by

Dales Batoctoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

149122
Petitioners maintain that under Section 112 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act),
Moras reconstituted TCT No. RT-40 (140) is already indefeasible the same having
attained finality one (1) year after the CA granted its reconstitution in CA-G.R. No.
20681-R. Citing the second paragraph of Section 31 of P.D. No. 1529[4] which reads:

The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject
only to such exceptions or liens as may be provided by law. It shall be
conclusive upon and against all persons, including the National
Government and all branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the
application or notice, the same being included in the general description
to all whom it may concern,

petitioners contend that the two courts below were without authority to annul TCT
No. 2574 issued in the name of Gregorio Venturanza.

Petitioners are wrong. Clearly, the provisions relied upon refer to original decrees of
registration and not to orders of reconstitution.

You might also like