This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-02-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In contrast to petitioners, SMC adequately proved its title to Lot 1131. SMC proved that its and its predecessors' titles to Lot 1131 all exist in the official records, and petitioners failed to present any convincing evidence to cast doubt on such titles. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that SMC's title enjoys presumptive conclusiveness and indefeasibility under the Torrens system.[84] | |||||
|
2005-08-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The right to seek reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust is not absolute. It is subject to extinctive prescription.[22] On this point, petitioners insist that the action prescribed in 4 years as held in the case of Millena v. Court of Appeals.[23] Petitioners' insistence is, however, misplaced. The 4-year prescriptive period is not applicable in the present case because the action was not based exclusively on fraud but on implied trust. Significantly, petitioners overlooked the well-settled rule, reiterated in the same case, that an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years. | |||||
|
2005-07-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The right to seek reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust is not absolute. It is subject to extinctive prescription.[22] On this point, petitioners insist that the action prescribed in 4 years as held in the case of Millena v. Court of Appeals.[23] Petitioners' insistence is, however, misplaced. The 4-year prescriptive period is not applicable in the present case because the action was not based exclusively on fraud but on implied trust. Significantly, petitioners overlooked the well-settled rule, reiterated in the same case, that an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years. | |||||