This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-11-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Under Section 63 of the Land Registration Act,[19] the law in effect at the time the PNB acquired the subject property and obtained TCT No. T-3211 in its name in 1972, where a decree in favor of a purchaser who acquires mortgaged property in foreclosure proceedings becomes final, such purchaser becomes entitled to the issuance of a new certificate of title in his name and a memorandum thereof shall be "indorsed upon the mortgagor's original certificate."[20] TCT No. T-662, which respondent gave complainant when they entered into the "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase" dated December 2, 1981, does not bear such memorandum but only a memorandum on the mortgage of the property to PNB in 1963 and the subsequent amendment of the mortgage. | |||||
|
2013-07-24 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Petitioner Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Inc. (Dream Village) claims to represent more than 2,000 families who have been occupying a 78,466-square meter lot in Western Bicutan, Taguig City since 1985 "in the concept of owners continuously, exclusively and notoriously."[6] The lot used to be part of the Hacienda de Maricaban (Maricaban), owned by Dolores Casal y Ochoa and registered under a Torrens title,[7] Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 291, issued on October 17, 1906 by the Registry of Deeds of Rizal.[8] Maricaban covered several parcels of land with a total area of over 2,544 hectares spread out over Makati, Pasig, Taguig, Pasay, and Parañaque.[9] | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
PUNO, CJ. |
||||
| The applicable law at that time is Section 21 of Act No. 496, Land Registration Act,[13] which requires that applications for registration should contain a notification to "all the occupants of the land and of all adjoining owners, if known; and, if not known, it shall state what search has been made to find them."[14] So we held in Republic v. Heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille:[15] | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
PUNO, CJ. |
||||
| SEC. 38. If the court after hearing finds that the applicant or adverse claimant has title as stated in his application or adverse claim and proper for registration, a decree of confirmation and registration shall be entered. Every decree of registration shall bind the land, and quiet title thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated in the following section. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular Government and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application, notice, or citation, or included in the general description 'To all whom it may concern.' Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the competent Court of First Instance a petition for review within one year after entry of the decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest. Upon the expiration of said term of one year, every decree or certificate of title issued in accordance with this section shall be incontrovertible. If there is any such purchaser, the decree of registration shall not be opened, but shall remain in full force and effect forever, subject only to the right of appeal hereinbefore provided: Provided, however, That no decree or certificate of title issued to persons not parties to the appeal shall be cancelled or annulled. But any person aggrieved by such decree in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other person for fraud in procuring the decree. Whenever the phrase 'innocent purchaser for value' or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Act, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.[18] | |||||
|
2007-06-15 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Besides, the validity of the 3 October 1957 Decision remains dubious. The order granting the reconstitution of title in Alegre, Sr's name was issued on 20 May 1955. On 31 May 1955, petitioner filed a Motion for Relief from the said order. However, a motion or petition for relief assumes that the assailed order or decision has already become final. In this case, the motion for relief was filed less than 30 days[42] from the issuance of the assailed order, clearly before it had become final. Petitioner's proper recourse would have been to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration. Thus, the CFI of Capiz improperly ruled on the motion for relief and set off a chain of events that led to the promulgation of the 3 October 1957 Decision. It can then be concluded that the 20 May 1955 Order eventually attained finality. | |||||
|
2004-11-25 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| There are palpable errors in this certification. Most glaringly, the document is certified by way of a jurat instead of an acknowledgment. A jurat is a distinct creature from an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed; while a jurat is that part of an affidavit where the officer certifies that the same was sworn before him.[25] Under Section 127 of the Land Registration Act,[26] which has been replicated in Section 112 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,[27] the Deed of Sale should have been acknowledged before a notary public.[28] | |||||
|
2004-06-21 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, both Petitioners Abrigo and respondent registered the sale of the property. Since neither petitioners nor their predecessors (Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go) knew that the property was covered by the Torrens system, they registered their respective sales under Act 3344.[17] For her part, respondent registered the transaction under the Torrens system[18] because, during the sale, Villafania had presented the transfer certificate of title (TCT) covering the property.[19] | |||||