This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-07-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court holds that the certification, by itself, is insufficient to prove the alleged fraud. Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not being adequate. [33] Fraud is a question of fact which must be proved. [34] The signatory of the certification, Datu Samra Andam, A/Adm. Assistant II, Natural Resources District No. XII-3, Marawi City, was not presented in court to testify on the due issuance of the certification, and to testify on the details of his certification, particularly the reason why the said office had no records of the data contained in OCT No. P-658 or to testify on the fact of fraud, if any. | |||||
|
2010-04-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| But even assuming arguendo that petitioners can avail of the five (5)-year redemption period provided under Section 119 of the Public Land Act, they still failed to exercise their right of redemption within the reglementary period provided by law. As mentioned earlier, Section 119 of said Act expressly provides that where the land involved is acquired as a homestead or under a free patent, if the mortgagor fails to exercise the right of redemption, he or his heirs may still repurchase the property within five (5) years from the expiration of the two (2)-year redemption period. The auction sale having been conducted on April 20, 1977, petitioners had until April 20, 1984 within which to redeem the mortgaged property. Since petitioner only filed the instant suit in 1999, their right to redeem had already lapsed. It took petitioners twenty-two (22) years before instituting an action for redemption. The considerable delay in asserting one's right before a court of justice is strongly persuasive of the lack of merit in petitioners' claim, since it is human nature for a person to enforce his right when the same is threatened or invaded. [18] | |||||
|
2007-03-12 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Under the Torrens System, an OCT enjoys a presumption of validity, which correlatively carries a strong presumption that the provisions of the law governing the registration of land which led to its issuance have been duly followed.[25] Fraud being a serious charge, it must be supported by clear and convincing proof.[26] Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof, however. | |||||
|
2004-09-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Thus, when the plaintiff admits in the complaint that the disputed land will revert to the public domain even if the title is canceled or amended, the action is for reversion; and the proper party who may bring action is the government, to which the property will revert.[32] A mere homestead applicant, not being the real party in interest, has no cause of action in a suit for reconveyance.[33] As it is, vested rights over the land applied for under a homestead may be validly claimed only by the applicant, after approval by the director of the Land Management Bureau of the former's final proof of homestead patent. [34] | |||||