Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FORTUNATO HALILI v. CIR

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 192268 2016-01-27	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. DELFINA C. CASIBANG PERALTA, J.
It is undisputed that the subject property is covered by OCT No. O-627, registered in the name of the Juan Cepeda.[33] A fundamental principle in land registration under the Torrens system is that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[34] Thus, the certificate of title becomes the best proof of ownership of a parcel of land.[35]
	GR No. 155830 2012-08-15	NUMERIANO P. ABOBON v. FELICITAS ABATA ABOBON BERSAMIN, J.
First of all, a fundamental principle in land registration under the Torrens system is that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[12] The certificate of title thus becomes the best proof of ownership of a parcel of land;[13] hence, anyone who deals with property registered under the Torrens system may rely on the title and need not go beyond the title.[14] This reliance on the certificate of title rests on the doctrine of indefeasibility of the land title, which has long been well-settled in this jurisdiction. It is only when the acquisition of the title is attended with fraud or bad faith that the doctrine of indefeasibility finds no application.[15]
	GR No. 173415 2008-03-28	Mariano Tanenglian Petitioner v. Silvestre Lorenzo CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The petitioner's titles to the subject properties have acquired the character of indeafeasibility, being registered under the Torrens System of registration. Once a decree of registration is made under the Torrens System, and the reglementary period has passed within which the decree may be questioned, the title is perfected and cannot be collaterally questioned later on.[45] To permit a collateral attack on petitioner's title, such as what respondents attempt, would reduce the vaunted legal indeafeasibility of a Torrens title to meaningless verbiage.[46] It has, therefore, become an ancient rule that the issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[47]
	GR NO. 140086 2005-06-08	TEOVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. EDWARD L. FERREIRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It has, therefore, become an ancient rule that the issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[43]
	GR NO. 141882 2005-03-11	J.L.T. AGRO v. ANTONIO BALANSAG TINGA, J.
Well-settled, of course, is the rule that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[49] A certificate of title accumulates in one document a precise and correct statement of the exact status of the fee held by its owner. The certificate, in the absence of fraud, is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real interest of its owner.[50]