Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. AMANCIO AND LUISA SARMIENTO AND PEDRO OGSINER v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 153829 2011-08-17	ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO v. EDUARDO SORIANO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
An action is deemed an attack on a title when its objective is to nullify the title, thereby challenging the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.[32]
	GR No. 154270 2010-03-09	TEOFISTO OÑO v. VICENTE N. LIM BERSAMIN, J.
An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when its objective is to nullify the title, thereby challenging the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed.[13] The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.[14]
	GR No. 159494 2008-07-31	PASIÑO v. DR. TEOFILO EDUARDO F. MONTERROYO CARPIO, J.
It is already settled that a counterclaim is considered an original complaint and as such, the attack on the title in a case originally for recovery of possession cannot be considered as a collateral attack on the title.[26] Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals[27] is similar to the case before us insofar as petitioner in that case filed an action for recovery of possession against respondent who, in turn, filed a counterclaim claiming ownership of the land. In that case, the Court ruled:Nor is there any obstacle to the determination of the validity of TCT No. 10101. It is true that the indefeasibility of torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. In the instant case, the original complaint is for recovery of possession filed by petitioner against private respondent, not an original action filed by the latter to question the validity of TCT No. 10101 on which petitioner bases its right. To rule on the issue of validity in a case for recovery of possession is tantamount to a collateral attack. However, it should not [b]e overlooked that private respondent filed a counterclaim against petitioner, claiming ownership over the land and seeking damages. Hence, we could rule on the question of the validity of TCT No. 10101 for the counterclaim can be considered a direct attack on the same. `A counterclaim is considered a complaint, only this time, it is the original defendant who becomes the plaintiff... It stands on the same footing and is to be tested by the same rules as if it were an independent action.' x x x.[28]
	GR No. 151424 2008-07-04	EAGLE REALTY CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC NACHURA, J.
Indeed, the general rule is that a purchaser may rely on what appears on the face of a certificate of title. He may be considered a purchaser in good faith even if he simply examines the latest certificate of title. An exception to this rule is when there exist important facts that would create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable man (and spur him) to go beyond the present title and to investigate those that preceded it.[34] The presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor as appearing on the face of said certificate. One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good faith, hence, does not merit the protection of the law.[35]
	GR NO. 162037 2006-11-29	HEIRS OF ENRIQUE DIAZ v. ELINOR A. VIRATA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An action is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.[80]
	GR NO. 162037 2006-08-07	HEIRS OF ENRIQUE DIAZ v. ELINOR A. VIRATA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An action is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.[80]