This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-03-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, it is indirect or collateral when, in an action or proceeding to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.[9] | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As to the issue of prescription, petitioner's possession of parcels 6 and 7 did not ripen into sole and exclusive ownership thereof. First, prescription applies to adverse, open, continuous, and exclusive possession. In order that a co- owner's possession may be deemed adverse to the other co-owners, the following elements[33] must concur: (1) that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the other co-owners; (2) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the other co-owners; and (3) that the evidence thereon must be clear and convincing. Clearly, petitioner cannot claim adverse possession in the concept of an owner where she voluntarily executed documents stating that she was a mere creditor and/or co-owner. Mere silent possession by a co- owner; his receipt of rents, fruits or profits from the property; his erection of buildings and fences and the planting of trees thereon; and the payment of land taxes cannot serve as proofs of exclusive ownership, if it is not borne out by clear and convincing evidence that he exercised acts of possession which unequivocably constituted an ouster or deprivation of the rights of the other co-owners.[34] In this case, we find that petitioner effected no clear and evident repudiation of the co- ownership. Petitioner's only act of repudiation of the co-ownership was when she refused to honor the extrajudicial settlement in 1994. Alternatively, possession by a co-owner is like that of a trustee and shall not be regarded as adverse to the other co-owners, but in fact as beneficial to all of them.[35] A co-ownership is a form of trust, with each owner being a trustee for each other.[36] Mere actual possession by one will not give rise to the inference that the possession was adverse because a co-owner is, after all, entitled to possession of the property. [37] Thus, as a rule, prescription does not run in favor of a co-heir or co-owner as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership; and he cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners, absent a clear repudiation of the co-ownership. [38] An action to demand partition among co-owners is imprescriptible, and each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property.[39] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court notes that the CA, indeed, failed to resolve petitioners' prayer for the issuance of the writ of prohibition, which, significantly, focuses on the alleged nullity of the DARAB Decision dated October 5, 1995. On this score, the CA found that the application for the issuance of the writ of prohibition was actually a collateral attack on the validity of the DARAB decision. But, a final and executory judgment may be set aside in three ways;[39] and a collateral attack, whereby in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof,[40] is one of these. This tenet is based upon a court's inherent authority to expunge void acts from its records.[41] Despite recognizing the need to resolve petitioners' application for the writ of prohibition in its Resolution dated January 12, 1999, the CA nonetheless summarily denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated February 23, 2000,[42] leaving the matter hanging and unresolved. | |||||
|
2004-07-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, a certificate of title is not subject to collateral attack. An attack is collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident in the action.[43] Under the Property Registration Decree, titles issued under the Torrens system can only be altered, modified or cancelled in direct proceedings in accordance with the law.[44] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Section 48 of P.D. 1529, the Property Registration Decree, provides that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack and can not be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding. An action is an attack on a title when the object of the action is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment or proceeding pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of an action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment or proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.[39] | |||||