This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-03-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner asseverates that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence, not only of ownership of the land referred to but also of the land's location, metes and bounds; that per testimony of Quiaoit, there was a discrepancy in the tie line as appearing in the technical description of respondent's title; that such discrepancy would mean the failure to locate respondent's property with precision and exactitude, fatal to the identification of the property, and consequently, to respondent's cause; that in foreign jurisdictions, the certificate of title does not vest in the registered owner the title over the property in respect to which a wrong description was made; and that respondent should have first filed the proper application and/or petition for the administrative and/or judicial correction of the erroneous tie line. Petitioner claims that the survey and sketch plans made by Quiaoit were worthless, as the latter was not a geodetic engineer and he did not use the Original Plan Psu 184580 of Nellie Balinsat (Balinsat) which was not presented before the RTC. Rather, he used the Projection Map of the Bureau of Lands-Baguio City which did not show the tie points and tie lines of all properties in Baguio City. Further, the Report made by the Clerk of Court was unreliable as no hearing was conducted thereon by the RTC; hence, the parties were not able to interpose their respective objections thereto. The monuments referred to were also unreliable, as there were discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses. Thus, the monuments in respondent's property had lost their integrity. Moreover, petitioner submits that the CA gravely erred in the appreciation of the pieces of evidence and the testimonies of witnesses. Finally, petitioner, citing Lorenzana Food Corporation v. Court of Appeals[18] and Misa v. Court of Appeals,[19] submits that errors in technical description and location impugn the integrity of Torrens titles and that, in an action for recovery, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title, and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.[20] | |||||
|
2004-11-19 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Petitioners cite Lorenzana Food Corporation v. Court of Appeals[35] in arguing that these errors cannot simply be qualified as mere typographical errors. However, the facts of the cited case differ from the case at bar, and the ruling thereon cannot be blindly applied to this case. | |||||