Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. FRANCISCO CIMAFRANCA AND VIBESA GURDIEL v. IAC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179334 2013-07-01	SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. SPS. HERACLEO AND RAMONA TECSON PERALTA, J.
Even if we squarely deal with the issues of laches and prescription, the same must still fail. Laches is principally a doctrine of equity which is applied to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation or in an injustice.[27] This doctrine finds no application in this case, since there is nothing inequitable in giving due course to respondents' claim. Both equity and the law direct that a property owner should be compensated if his property is taken for public use.[28] Neither shall prescription bar respondents' claim following the long-standing rule "that where private property is taken by the Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto either through expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner's action to recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe."[29]
	GR No. 187677 2013-04-17	REPUBLIC v. ROSA SAMSON-TATAD SERENO, C.J.
In several instances, we have considered an Answer praying for the cancellation of the plaintiff's Torrens title as a form of a collateral attack.[34] We have afforded the similar treatment in a petition questioning the validity of a deed of sale for a registered land,[35] and in a reformation of a deed of sale to include areas registered under the name of another party.[36] But a resolution on the issue of ownership in a partition case was deemed neither to be a direct or collateral attack, for "until and unless this issue of co-ownership is definitely and finally resolved, it would be premature to effect a partition of the disputed properties."[37]
	GR NO. 144103 2005-08-31	DELA CRUZ v. SABINA MIGUEL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has ruled that unless there are intervening rights of third persons which may be affected or prejudiced by a decision directing the return of the lot to petitioners, the equitable defense of laches will not apply as against the registered owners.[57] In the case at bar, there being no intervening third persons whose rights will be affected or prejudiced if possession of the subject lot is restored to the petitioners, the return of the same is in order.