Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO VENCILAO v. CA

This case has been cited 7 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. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
As a general rule, where the certificate of title is in the name of the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on what appears on the face of the title. He is under no obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of the certificate. By way of exception, the vendee is required to make the necessary inquiries if there is anything in the certificate of title which indicates any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property. Otherwise, his mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendor's title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for value if it afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a like situation. [298]
	GR No. 180683 2011-06-01	AURORA L. TECSON v. FAUSTO PEREZ, J.
Second. Other than the bare assertion of the petitioners, there is absolutely no proof on record that Waldetrudes was the sole beneficial owner of Lot 2189. Tax Declaration No. 6521 simply cannot prevail over OCT No. 734 as conclusive evidence of the true ownership of Lot 2189.[71]
	GR NO. 151235 2005-08-28	HEIRS OF JUAN PANGANIBAN v. ANGELINA N. DAYRIT TINGA, J.
The resolution of the foregoing issues hinges on the question of which owner's duplicate certificate of title is valid and subsisting, the one in petitioners' possession or the one issued to respondent. What appears on the face of the title is controlling in questions of ownership since the certificate of title is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[27]
	GR No. 151235 2005-07-28	HEIRS OF JUAN PANGANIBAN v. ANGELINA N. DAYRIT TINGA, J.
The resolution of the foregoing issues hinges on the question of which owner's duplicate certificate of title is valid and subsisting, the one in petitioners' possession or the one issued to respondent. What appears on the face of the title is controlling in questions of ownership since the certificate of title is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[27]
	GR NO. 158682 2005-01-31	SPS. BIENVENIDO R. MACADANGDANG AND VIRGINIA C. MACADANGDANG v. SPS. RAMON MARTINEZ AND GLORIA F. MARTINEZ CORONA, J.
An innocent mortgagee for value is akin to an innocent purchaser for value. The phrase "innocent purchaser for value" is deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee or other (beneficiary of an) encumbrance for value.[10] An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim of another person.[11] As a general rule, where the certificate of title is in the name of the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on what appears on the face of the title and is not obligated to look beyond what appears on the face of the certificate of title of the vendor. As an exception, the vendee is required to make the necessary inquiries if there is anything in the certificate of title which raises any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property.[12] Otherwise, his mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his willful disregard of the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendor's title will not make him an innocent purchaser for value if it afterwards develops that the title is in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a like situation.[13]
	GR No. 142056 2001-04-19	EVELYN ONG v. CA AND SPS. RICHARD AND NILDA CABUCOS BELLOSILLO, J.
Petitioners now come to us by way of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of Appeals. But they have not substantiated their claim. In fact, it is not unlikely that they merely availed of such remedy because their period within which to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals had already expired. They received copy of the Court of Appeal's Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration on 28 January 2000, thus they had until 12 February within which to appeal to this Court. They did not do so but opted to come to us on certiorari. Their petition was posted on 21 February 2000.[5] But certiorari, this Court emphasizes, is not a substitute for lost appeal.[6] Even on the merits, the petition must fail as it does not provide any reason for this Court to disagree with the uniform ruling of the three (3) lower courts. Petitioners' alleged possession of subject property since 1972 cannot render nugatory the right of respondents as holders of a certificate of title. Prescription does not run against registered land. A title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession.[7] The subject property was previously titled in the name of spouses Pedro and Josefa Quiamco, then transferred to Trinidad, and later to respondents. Moreover, in asserting ownership by donation, petitioners were in effect assailing the title of respondents. The Court of Appeals correctly brushed aside this argument of petitioners by invoking our ruling that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; the issue on its validity can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[8] Having failed to show any right to possess subject property, petitioners must surrender possession to respondents as the new owners and rightfully entitled thereto.