This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-07-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We have held in prior cases that the order or decision granting an application for a free patent can be reviewed only within one year from its issuance on the ground of actual fraud via a petition for review in the Regional Trial Court, provided that no innocent purchaser for value has acquired the property or any interest thereon. However, an aggrieved party may still file an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust, but the right of action prescribes in 10 years counted from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property, provided that it has not been acquired by an innocent purchaser for value.[15] This 10-year prescriptive period applies only when the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property. If the person claiming to be its owner is in actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect is an action to quiet title thereto, does not prescribe.[16] | |||||
|
2008-09-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| There is identity of causes of action since the issues raised in all the cases essentially involve the claim of ownership over the subject properties. Even if the forms or natures of the actions are different, there is still identity of causes of action when the same facts or evidence support and establish the causes of action in the case at bar and in the previous cases.[18] | |||||
|
2008-02-19 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Even if res judicata requires not absolute but substantial identity of parties, still there exists substantial identity only when the "additional" party acts in the same capacity or is in privity with the parties in the former action.[46] In this case, while it is true that respondents are legitimate children and relatives by affinity of Faustino it is more important to remember that, as shown by their documents of acquisition, they became owners of the subject fishponds not through Faustino alone but also from a third person (i.e., Maria Abalos). Respondents are asserting their own rights and interests which are distinct and separate from those of Faustino's claim as a hereditary heir of Francisco Abalos. Hence, they cannot be considered as privies to the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 15465. Unfortunately for petitioners, they relied solely on their untenable defense of res judicata instead of contesting the genuineness and due execution of respondents' documentary evidence. | |||||