This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Lopez siblings aver that a deeper analysis of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals will reveal the latter's utter disregard for or deviation from the law of the case set by this Court in its Decisions in Santos v. Court of Appeals,[33] Group Commander, Intelligence & Security Group, Philippine Army v. Dr. Malvar,[34] and Lopez v. Court of Appeals,[35] where the issue on the validity of the homestead patent granted to Hermogenes, father of the Lopez siblings, was already passed upon. In these three Decisions, the Court already declared the homestead patent awarded to Hermogenes valid. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in applying the rule on estoppel in disregard of the doctrine of law of the case. | |||||
|
2009-01-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Firstly, the complaint does not allege any defect with TCT No. T-8242 in the name of the spouses Rodolfo, who were petitioner's predecessors-in-interest, or any circumstance from which it could reasonably be inferred that petitioner had any actual knowledge of facts that would impel it to make further inquiry into the title of the spouses Rodolfo.[36] It is basic that a person dealing with registered property need not go beyond, but only has to rely on, the title of his predecessor-in-interest. Since "the act of registration is the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned," it follows that where there is nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore farther than what the Torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto. If the rule were otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of title which the Torrens system seeks to insure would entirely be futile and nugatory. The public shall then be denied of its foremost motivation for respecting and observing the Torrens system of registration. In the end, the business community stands to be inconvenienced and prejudiced immeasurably.[37] | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| A person dealing with registered land may thus safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore, and he is not required to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property[7] but, where such party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is unregistered at the time he acquired a right thereto, his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest would have the effect of registration as regards to him.[8] | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| 110900[6] prevails over the Decision rendered by the First Division in G.R. No. 90380.[7] The heirs of Hermogenes Lopez, the heirs of Elino Adia, Ambrosio Aguilar and Eduardo V. Santos were engaged in a legal tug-of-war over the ownership of a parcel of land located in Barrio De la Paz, Antipolo City with an area of 19 hectares, 48 ares and 88 centares more or | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| 5957. However, the CFI dismissed the complaint on the ground that Hermogenes Lopez was not the real party-in-interest since he had sold the property to Ambrosio Aguilar in December of 1959.[15] This prompted Ambrosio Aguilar to file with the same CFI a similar action against the same defendants, including the Director of Lands, docketed as Civil Case No. 24873. On April 15, 1981, the court rendered judgment in favor of Ambrosio Aguilar, declaring him the true and lawful owner of the land in question and nullifying, for being void ab initio, OCT No. 537 in the name of Fernando Gorospe and all subsequent Transfer Certificates of Title emanating therefrom.[16] On appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 07475, the Court of Appeals, affirmed in toto the trial court's judgment and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration.[17] | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It appears from the very caption of the complaint in Civil Case No. 24873[35] the case that reached this Court as G.R. No. 90380 that the Director of Lands was impleaded as co-defendant by plaintiff Ambrosio Aguilar | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| less, described and delineated in Plan H-138612.[8] I | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| land. In the early part of 1936, Hermogenes inquired from the Bureau of Lands about the status of his late father's homestead application. He learned that it was not acted upon. He then filed his homestead application over the same land, docketed as Homestead Application No. 138612. After he had shown full compliance with the requirements of the Public Land Act, the Director of Lands, on February 7, 1939, approved Plan No. H-138612 in the name of Hermogenes Lopez. Thereafter, the Director of Lands ordered the issuance of the corresponding patent to him.[9] Hermogenes continued to occupy the land as its recognized owner until he transferred his rights thereto in favor of Ambrosio Aguilar through a deed of sale executed on July 31, 1959.[10] Records also show that on August 24, 1944, the land was registered in the name of Fernando Gorospe under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 537, pursuant to Free Patent No. 54072 based on the same Homestead Application No. 138612 | |||||