Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEONCIO LEE TEK SHENG v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 165427 2011-03-21	BETTY B. LACBAYAN v. BAYANI S. SAMOY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
There is no dispute that a Torrens certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked,[32] but that rule is not material to the case at bar. What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title itself.[33] The certificate referred to is that document issued by the Register of Deeds known as the TCT. In contrast, the title referred to by law means ownership which is, more often than not, represented by that document.[34] Petitioner apparently confuses title with the certificate of title. Title as a concept of ownership should not be confused with the certificate of title as evidence of such ownership although both are interchangeably used.[35]
	GR No. 169970 2009-01-20	PROTACIO VICENTE v. DELIA SOLEDAD AVERA PUNO, C.J.
As the registered owners and actual possessors of the property in question, petitioners have a clear legal right to the property in dispute. Section 51 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 provides that registration is the operative act that conveys or affects registered land as against third persons.[30] Thus, a TCT is the best proof of ownership of land.[31] In the case at bar, it is undisputed that petitioners are the registered owners and actual possessors of the subject property. Moreover, as the registered owners, petitioners have the right to the possession of the property, which is one of the attributes of ownership.[32]
	GR NO. 167412 2006-02-22	JUANITA NAVAL v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, it does not deprive an aggrieved party of a remedy in law. What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title or ownership which is represented by such certificate. Ownership is different from a certificate of title.[36] The fact that petitioner was able to secure a title in her name did not operate to vest ownership upon her of the subject land. Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein.[37] It cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner; nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others.[38] Its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered owner.[39]
	GR No. 150707 2004-04-14	APOLONIA LL. OCAMPO NOW SUBSTITUTED BY MARIANO O. QUIEN v. FIDELA LL. OCAMPO PANGANIBAN, J.
We are not unmindful of our ruling that the mere issuance of a certificate of title does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not named therein.[34] But given the circumstances of this case, the claim of co-ownership by petitioners has no leg to stand on. Again, we stress, Belen clearly traced the source of her sole ownership of the property in question and thereby foreclosed the unproven and unsubstantiated allegation of co-ownership thereof.
	GR No. 114172 2003-08-25	JUANITA P. PINEDA v. CA CARPIO, J.
Therefore, TCT 13138 issued in the name of Mojica is void. However, what is void is the transfer certificate of title and not the title over the Property. The title refers to the ownership of the Property covered by the transfer certificate of title while the transfer certificate of title merely evidences that ownership. A certificate of title is not equivalent to title as the Court explained in Lee Tek Sheng v. Court of Appeals:[21]
	GR No. 149679 2003-05-30	HEIRS OF CLEMENTE ERMAC v. ERMAC PANGANIBAN, J.
Furthermore, ownership is not the same as a certificate of title. Registering a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, because registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership.[16] A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein.[17] Its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered owner.[18]