This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-03-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Section 3(f) of P.D. No. No. 1517 defines the term "tenant" covered by the said decree as the "rightful occupant of land and its structures, but does not include those whose presence on the land is merely tolerated and without the benefit of contract, those who enter the land by force or deceit, or those whose possession is under litigation." It has already been ruled that occupants of the land whose presence therein is devoid of any legal authority, or those whose contracts of lease were already terminated or had already expired, or whose possession is under litigation, are not considered "tenants" under the Section 3(f).[19] | |||||
|
2008-09-08 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Petitioners utterly miss the point. To repeat, with the finding that the property described in their title is different from that of respondent Cañosa, the petition for annulment of judgment must necessarily fail. And that should put a stop on the matter. However, the Court of Appeals noted that both parties raised issues of ownership and spuriousness of their respective titles -- with petitioners claiming that no records exist in the Quezon City Assessor's Office nor in the Taxation (Real Estate Division) of the ownership of respondent Cañosa's predecessor-in-interest over a 33,914 sq m land in Quezon City, and with respondent Cañosa asserting that the title issued to petitioners' predecessors-in-interest is a spurious, having emanated from a spurious private subdivision survey (Psd) plan. Obviously, the validity of the parties' respective titles is being attacked, in a proceeding which was brought merely to seek the nullification of an order of reconstitution. This cannot be allowed. It is a well-settled doctrine that a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can be altered, modified or cancelled only in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.[27] This is the very same reason why the Court of Appeals could not, and did not deign to, resolve the matter of ownership. The Court of Appeals' declaration that it is not a trier of facts must be taken within this context. | |||||
|
2007-11-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is settled that a certificate of title is a conclusive evidence of ownership; it does not even matter if the title is questionable, the instant action being an ejectment suit.[34] In addition, the age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.[35] | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| To be able to qualify and avail oneself of the rights and privileges granted by the said decree, one must be: (1) a legitimate tenant of the land for ten (10) years or more; (2) must have built his home on the land by contract; and, (3) has resided continuously for the last ten (10) years. Obviously, those who do not fall within the said category cannot be considered "legitimate tenants" and, therefore, not entitled to the right of first refusal to purchase the property should the owner of the land decide to sell the same at a reasonable price within a reasonable time.[12] | |||||