Alabado Law

“Reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate of title may be done judicially, in accordance with the special procedure laid down in R.A. No. 26 or administratively, in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6732.” [ Marcelino dela Paz vs. Republic of the Philippines  (G.R. No. 195726, dated November 20, 2017)].   Administrative reconstitution of title under RA No. 6732 may only be availed of in case of substantial loss or destruction of land titles due to fire, flood or other force majeure as determined by the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority: Provided, That the number of certificates of titles lost or damaged should be at least ten percent (10%) of the total number in the possession of the Office of the Register of Deeds: Provided, further, That in no case shall the number of certificates of titles lost or damaged be less than five hundred (500).   In all other cases, a petition in court may be filed to reconstitute loss or destroyed title ...

Under the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the filing of a Reply to an Answer is allowed only when the Answer attaches an actionable document (or the contents of the document were alleged verbatim in the Answer), to wit:   Section 10.   Reply.  — All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to his or her answer.   A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document.   In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based solely on an actionable document. ( Rule 6 )   If the...

When a Case Becomes Moot and Academic. Supervening Event   When does a case become moot and academic?  The Supreme Court in the case of  Federal Express Corporation vs. Airfreight 2000, Inc., and the CIR (G.R. No. 225050, dated September 14, 2021) , citing the case of  Garcillano vs. House of Representative Committee on Public Information [ 595 Phil. 775 (2008)
] ,  explained as follows: “In  Garcillano v. House of Representatives Committee on Public Information , the Court elucidated on when a case should be dismissed for being moot and academic:    The Court, however, dismisses G.R. No. 170338 for being moot and academic. Repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions is the principle that the exercise by this Court of judicial power is limited to the determination and resolution of actual cases and controversies. By actual cases, we mean existing conflicts appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, for oth...