Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26
2 Re: Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:34 pm
(Sec 7 refer to other sections, which refer to other sections, but here the main.)Sec. 7. Reconstituted certificates of title shall have the same validity and legal effect as the originals thereof: Provided, however, That certificates of title reconstituted extrajudicially, in the manner stated in sections five and six hereof, shall be without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but entry or notation of which has not been made on the reconstituted certificate of title. This reservation shall be noted as an encumbrance on the reconstituted certificate of title.
If an origin title is destroyed or lost, it's possible to get a new one reconstructed at The Registry of Deeds. ("Reconctruct" mean trying to do a new one as similar as possble as the origin, based on available information.)
Such new document has same value as an origin (=can be used as an origin)
BUT if there were any notes written at the origin. they HAVE TO be noted at the new one too.
(For instance it can be a note saying the property is collateral for a loan.)
4 Re: Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26 on Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:27 pm
Do you mean something still valid (as for instance an unpaid loan) were not added to the new title document?noside046 wrote:What will be the effect if the annotated RA 26 on the title was not cancelled?
If so - if the persons, who got the new done, knew of that note and didn't added that information, that I see as illegal, and if the new document is used to fool anyone (to buy the property or to get additional loan) that's fraud...
5 Re: Section 7 of Republic Act No. 26 Today at 7:36 pm
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum