Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

Elinel Caña v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181368 2012-02-22	GEORGE S. TOLENTINO v. PACIFICO S. LAUREL PERALTA, J.
Respondents' title over the subject property is evidence of their ownership thereof. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[20] It is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein.[21] It is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession.[22] Thus, the Court held that the age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.[23]
	GR No. 152423 2010-12-15	SPS. MARCOS R. ESMAQUEL AND VICTORIA SORDEVILLA v. MARIA COPRADA PERALTA, J.
On the other hand, it is undisputed that the subject property is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-93542, registered in the name of the petitioners. As against the respondent's unproven claim that she acquired a portion of the property from the petitioners by virtue of an oral sale, the Torrens title of petitioners must prevail. Petitioners' title over the subject property is evidence of their ownership thereof. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. Moreover, the age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.[14]
	GR NO. 159422 2008-03-28	CHINESE YMCA OF MANILA DOWNTOWN v. REGISTER OF DEEDS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Commission,[36] Vicar International Construction, Inc. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation,[37] Ateneo De Naga University v. Manalo,[38] China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc.,[39] LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter,[40] Varorient Shipping Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[41] and most recently in Cana v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines ,[42] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. As in the aforementioned cases, YMCA rectified its failure to submit proof of Golangco's authority to sign the Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping on its behalf when it attached in its Motion for Reconsideration a Secretary's Certificate issued by its