Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUAN C. CARVAJAL v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 163551 2011-07-18	DATU KIRAM SAMPACO v. HADJI SERAD MINGCA LANTUD PERALTA, J.
The Torrens title is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein, and other matters which can be litigated and decided in land registration proceedings. [26] Tax declarations and tax receipts cannot prevail over a certificate of title which is an incontrovertible proof of ownership. [27] An original certificate of title issued by the Register of Deeds under an administrative proceeding is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under judicial proceedings. [28] However, the Court has ruled that indefeasibility of title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation. [29]
	GR No. 164402 2010-07-05	ASUNCION URIETA VDA. DE AGUILAR v. SPS. EDERLINA B. ALFARO AND RAUL ALFARO DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is settled that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to property in favor of the person in whose name the title appears.[24] It is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein.[25] It is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession.[26] Thus, in Arambulo v. Gungab,[27] this Court declared that the "age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof."
	GR No. 164687 2009-02-12	SM PRIME HOLDINGS v. ANGELA V. MADAYAG NACHURA, J.
It is well to note at this point that, in its bid to avoid multiplicity of suits and to promote the expeditious resolution of cases, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the latter's limited jurisdiction when acting merely as a land registration court. Land registration courts, as such, can now hear and decide even controversial and contentious cases, as well as those involving substantial issues.[22] When the law confers jurisdiction upon a court, the latter is deemed to have all the necessary powers to exercise such jurisdiction to make it effective. [23] It may, therefore, hear and determine all questions that arise from a petition for registration.
	GR NO. 151322 2006-10-11	MARIO L. COPUYOC v. ERLINDA DE SOLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The RTC gave greater weight to the testimony of Mr. Benjamin Bustos that the property described in these two titles is identical. The Court, however, is inclined to believe otherwise. It should be stressed that the title is the conclusive proof of a property's metes and bounds.[38] The marked discrepancy between the two titles clearly casts serious doubt as to the identity of the property being claimed by respondent. Given respondent's failure to establish her claim, including the identity of the property, her case perforce must likewise fail.