This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-01-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the assertion of respondents, OCT No. 404 was expressly cancelled by TCT No. T-8241. The alleged non-signature by the Register of Deeds Soliman Achacoso, , does not affect the validity of TCT No. T-8241 since he signed TCT No. T- 8242 and issued both titles on the same day. There is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The presumption is further bolstered by the fact that TCT No. T-8241 was certified to be on file with the Registry of Deeds and registered in the name of Cipriano. It is enough that petitioner had examined the latest certificate of title which in this case was issued in the name of the immediate transferor, the spouses Rodolfo. The purchaser is not bound by the original certificate but only by the certificate of title of the person from whom he had purchased the property.[38] | |||||
|
2003-09-11 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Finally, on the third issue, this Court has no choice but to reverse and set aside the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 2 August 2002 for being void on its face. To be sure, the instant proceeding is a collateral attack on such decision since the issue of its validity is involved in this action only as a mere incident.[55] Of course, this attack is proper only when the assailed judgment is null on its face, as where it is patent that the court which rendered the judgment in question has no jurisdiction.[56] Parenthetically, forum shopping is consummated although the court in which one of the suits was brought has no jurisdiction over the action.[57] | |||||
|
2001-04-19 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners now come to us by way of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of Appeals. But they have not substantiated their claim. In fact, it is not unlikely that they merely availed of such remedy because their period within which to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals had already expired. They received copy of the Court of Appeal's Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration on 28 January 2000, thus they had until 12 February within which to appeal to this Court. They did not do so but opted to come to us on certiorari. Their petition was posted on 21 February 2000.[5] But certiorari, this Court emphasizes, is not a substitute for lost appeal.[6] Even on the merits, the petition must fail as it does not provide any reason for this Court to disagree with the uniform ruling of the three (3) lower courts. Petitioners' alleged possession of subject property since 1972 cannot render nugatory the right of respondents as holders of a certificate of title. Prescription does not run against registered land. A title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession.[7] The subject property was previously titled in the name of spouses Pedro and Josefa Quiamco, then transferred to Trinidad, and later to respondents. Moreover, in asserting ownership by donation, petitioners were in effect assailing the title of respondents. The Court of Appeals correctly brushed aside this argument of petitioners by invoking our ruling that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; the issue on its validity can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[8] Having failed to show any right to possess subject property, petitioners must surrender possession to respondents as the new owners and rightfully entitled thereto. | |||||