Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Bunagan Vs CFI

    Uploaded by

    apple_doctolero
    1) Dionisia Icong and her children filed a petition to reconstitute the original title of Lot 1660 under the names of "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong, spouses." Espiritu Bunagan opposed the petition, claiming he bought the lot from the legitimate heirs of Antonio Ompad. 2) The issue is whether the title can be reconstituted. 3) The court ruled no, as reconstitution only allows restoring the original form of a lost or destroyed title. Icong also sought to change the owners from just "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong" to add "spouses," which requires a separate

    Copyright:

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

    Bunagan Vs CFI

    Uploaded by

    apple_doctolero
    38 views1 page
    1) Dionisia Icong and her children filed a petition to reconstitute the original title of Lot 1660 under the names of "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong, spouses." Espiritu Bunagan opposed the petition, claiming he bought the lot from the legitimate heirs of Antonio Ompad. 2) The issue is whether the title can be reconstituted. 3) The court ruled no, as reconstitution only allows restoring the original form of a lost or destroyed title. Icong also sought to change the owners from just "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong" to add "spouses," which requires a separate

    Original Description:

    123

    Original Title

    Bunagan vs CFI

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Dionisia Icong and her children filed a petition to reconstitute the original title of Lot 1660 under the names of "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong, spouses." Espiritu Bunagan opposed the petition, claiming he bought the lot from the legitimate heirs of Antonio Ompad. 2) The issue is whether the title can be reconstituted. 3) The court ruled no, as reconstitution only allows restoring the original form of a lost or destroyed title. Icong also sought to change the owners from just "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong" to add "spouses," which requires a separate

    Copyright:

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

    Bunagan Vs CFI

    Uploaded by

    apple_doctolero
    1) Dionisia Icong and her children filed a petition to reconstitute the original title of Lot 1660 under the names of "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong, spouses." Espiritu Bunagan opposed the petition, claiming he bought the lot from the legitimate heirs of Antonio Ompad. 2) The issue is whether the title can be reconstituted. 3) The court ruled no, as reconstitution only allows restoring the original form of a lost or destroyed title. Icong also sought to change the owners from just "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong" to add "spouses," which requires a separate

    Copyright:

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

    Bunagan vs CFI

    Facts:

    On December 19, 1966, Dionisia Icong and her children filed a petition for the reconstitution of the original
    certificate of title covering Lot 1660 of the Opon Cadastre in the name of "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong,
    spouses," and once reconstituted to cancel the same and another one issued in the name of “Dionisia Icong and the
    Ompad siblings.

    Espiritu Bunagan opposed the petition, upon the ground that he is the owner of the lot in question, having
    bought the same from Guadalupe Lumongsod and Perpetua Inso, legitimate heirs of the late Antonio Ompad; and
    that Dionisia Icong is merely a trustee of the lot in behalf of Antonio Ompad.

    On April 22, 1967, the petitioners therein moved to dismiss the opposition, contending that the said
    opposition constitute an adverse claim against the rights of Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong which cannot be
    entertained by the cadastral court.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the title can be Reconstituted

    Ruling: No

    The reconstitution or reconstruction of a certificate of title literally and within the meaning of Republic Act No. 26
    denotes restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and
    condition. The purpose of the reconstitution of any document, book or record is to have the same reproduced, after
    observing the procedure prescribed by law, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred.

    If the certificate of title covering the lot was decreed in the form of "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong," as in this
    case, the reconstituted certificate of title should likewise be in the name of the owners as they appeared in the lost or
    destroyed certificate of title sought to be reconstituted. Any change that should be made in the ownership of the
    property should be the subject of a separate suit.

    In the instant case, it appears that the petition filed on December 19, 1966 is not merely for the reconstitution of a
    lost or destroyed certificate of title. Dionisia Icong and her children also wanted the correction of the name of the
    owners of the lot from "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong" to "spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia
    Icong" which involves a material change in the certificate of title, a change which, not being consented to by the
    herein petitioners whose interests are affected thereby, cannot be authorized under the summary proceedings for
    reconstitution prescribed in Republic Act No. 26. A change of this nature raises an issue which should be ventilated
    and decided in an ordinary civil action.

    You might also like