Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARLENE CRISOSTOMO v. FLORITO M. GARCIA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 173186 2015-09-16	ANICETO UY v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
The law creates the obligation of the trustee to reconvey the property and its title in favor of the true owner. Correlating Section 53, paragraph 3 of PD No. 1529 and Article 1456 of the Civil Code with Article 1144 (2) of the Civil Code,[45] the prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property is ten (10) years reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title.[46] This ten-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date the adverse party repudiates the implied trust, which repudiation takes place when the adverse party registers the land.[47] An exception to this rule is when the patty seeking reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust is in actual, continuous and peaceful possession of the property involved.[48] Prescription does not commence to run against him because the action would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title, an action that is imprescriptible.[49]
	GR No. 182908 2014-08-06	HEIRS OF FRANCISCO I. NARVASA v. IMBORNAL PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
When property is registered in another's name, an implied or constructive trust is created by law in favor of the true owner.[38]Article 1456 of the Civil Code provides that a person acquiring property through fraud becomes, by operation of law, a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the real owner of the property. An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in ten (10) years, reckoned from the date of registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property,[39] if the plaintiff is not in possession.However, if the plaintiff is in possession of the property, the action is imprescriptible. As held in the case of Lasquite v. Victory Hills, Inc.:[40]
	GR No. 169901 2011-08-03	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CIRIACO JUMAMOY DEL CASTILLO, J.
"If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes."[30] An action for reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes in 10 years as it is an obligation created by law,[31] to be counted from the date of issuance of the Torrens title over the property.[32] This rule, however, applies only when the plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property.
	GR No. 171056 2009-03-13	DINAH C. CASTILLO v. ANTONIO M. ESCUTIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To reiterate, for grave misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were a persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. Both the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon and the Court of Appeals found that there was no sufficient evidence to substantiate petitioner's charge of grave misconduct against respondents. For this Court to reverse the rulings of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon and the Court of Appeals, it must necessarily review the evidence presented by the parties and decide on a question of fact. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[50]
	GR No. 161237 2009-01-14	PERFECTO MACABABBAD v. FERNANDO G. MASIRAG BRION, J.
In Crisostomo v. Garcia,[41] this Court ruled that prescription may either be a question of law or fact; it is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of an allegation of fact; it is a question of law when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a given state of facts. The test of whether a question is one of law or fact is not the appellation given to the question by the party raising the issue; the test is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence. Prescription, evidently, is a question of fact where there is a need to determine the veracity of factual matters such as the date when the period to bring the action commenced to run.[42]
	GR No. 145587 2007-10-26	EDI-STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL v. NLRC VELASCO JR., J.
However, instead of annulling the dispositions of the NLRC and remanding the case for further proceedings we will resolve the petition based on the records before us to avoid a protracted litigation.[33]