Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NEMENCIO C. EVANGELISTA v. CARMELINO M. SANTIAGO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 201248 2015-03-11	LETICIA NAGUIT AQUINO v. CESAR B. QUIAZON MENDOZA, J.
A "cloud on title" is an outstanding instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is actually invalid or inoperative, but which may nevertheless impair or affect injuriously the title to property. The matter complained of must have a prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. The cloud on title is a semblance of title which appears in some legal form but which is in fact unfounded. The invalidity or inoperativeness of the instrument is not apparent on the face of such instrument, and it has to be proved by extrinsic evidence.[23]
	GR No. 205179 2014-07-18	GERVE MAGALLANES v. PALMER ASIA CARPIO, J.
Under our procedural rules, "a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action."[26] In the instant case, Magallanes filed a motion to dismiss in accordance with the Rules of Court, wherein he claimed that: x x x the obvious and only real party in interest in the filing and prosecution of the civil aspect impliedly instituted with x x x the filing of the foregoing Criminal Cases for B.P. 22 is Andrews International Products, Inc.
	GR No. 167181 2008-12-23	SPS. CARLOS MUNSALUD AND WINNIE MUNSALUD v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY REYES, R.T., J.
The trial court is reminded that the caption of the complaint is not determinative of the nature of the action.[32] The caption of the pleading should not be the governing factor, but rather the allegations in it should determine the nature of the action, because even without the prayer for a specific remedy, the courts may nevertheless grant the proper relief as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced.[33]
	GR No. 163794 2008-11-28	REPUBLIC v. NORMELITO J. BALLOCANAG NACHURA, J.
In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land.[24] Indeed, the ownership over the subject land reverted to the State by virtue of the decisions of the
	GR No. 170409 2008-01-28	GREGORIA MARTINEZ v. CA TINGA, J,
Turning again to the first issue raised by petitioner, it is apparent that her insistence that the State through the director of lands is an indispensable party flows from her failure to recognize that private respondents' action is one for declaration of nullity of title which is different from an action for reversion of title to the State. In the latter case the director of lands needs to be impleaded, unlike in the first. Thus, we reiterated in Evangelista v. Santiago:[33]
	GR NO. 156888 2006-11-20	PEDRO R. SANTIAGO v. SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Nevertheless, even if we were to overlook the foregoing grievous error, we would be hard pressed to find fault in the assailed orders of the RTC. The present petition is substantially infirm as this Court had already expressed in the case of Nemencio C. Evangelista, et al. v. Carmelino M. Santiago,[18] that the Spanish title of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez, the Titulo de Propriedad de Torrenos of 1891, has been divested of any evidentiary value to establish ownership over real property.
	GR NO. 168222 2006-04-18	SPS. TEODULO RUMARATE v. HILARIO HERNANDEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Evangelista v. Santiago,[29] it was held that title to real property refers to that upon which ownership is based. It is the evidence of the right of the owner or the extent of his interest, by which means he can maintain control and, as a rule, assert a right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property.