This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Lastly, MCIAA's contention on acquisitive prescription in its favor must fail. Aside from the absence of the satisfactory showing of MCIAA's supposed possession of the subject lot, no acquisitive prescription could arise in view of the indefeasibility of the respondents' Torrens title. Under the Torrens System, no adverse possession could deprive the registered owners of their title by prescription.[26] The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop any question as to its legality forever. Thus, once title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the mirador su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land.[27] | |||||
|
2015-04-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In addition to the imprescriptibility, the person who holds a Torrens Title over a land is also entitled to the possession thereof.[52] The right to possess and occupy the land is an attribute and a logical consequence of ownership.[53] Corollary to this rule is the right of the holder of the Torrens Title to eject any person illegally occupying their property. Again, this right is imprescriptible.[54] | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Third, the trial court's ruling that petitioner had a long and unexplained inaction in asserting his claim over the subject property, and hence, is barred by laches from recovering his property, is without basis. Petitioner has a valid title over his property (i.e., the land covered by OCT P-3030). As a registered owner, petitioner has a right to eject any person illegally occupying his property. This right is imprescriptible and can never be barred by laches. In Bishop v. Court of Appeals,[13] we held, thus: As registered owners of the lots in question, the private respondents have a right to eject any person illegally occupying their property. This right is imprescriptible. Even if it be supposed that they were aware of the petitioners' occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand the return of their property at any time as long as the possession was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all. This right is never barred by laches.[14] | |||||
|
2006-06-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| During the trial in the lower court, the private respondent filed on November 6, 1992, a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the petitioner opposed. On July 29, 1998, the trial court dismissed the complaint. Citing Bishop v. Court of Appeals,[6] that likewise cited Legarda and Prieto v. Saleeby,[7] it ruled that upon the expiration of one year from and after the date of entry of the registration, the certificate of title becomes indefeasible and collateral attack is not allowed.[8] | |||||