This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-08 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Therefore, in light of the foregoing evidence, as correctly found by the RTC and the CA, the claim of Sebastian and Eduardo that TCT Nos. 38254 and 38255 conclusively show that the owners of the properties covered therein were Joaquin and Caridad by virtue of the registration in the name of Joaquin Agtarap casado con (married to) Caridad Garcia, deserves scant consideration. This cannot be said to be a collateral attack on the said TCTs. Indeed, simple possession of a certificate of title is not necessarily conclusive of a holder's true ownership of property. [25] A certificate of title under the Torrens system aims to protect dominion; it cannot be used as an instrument for the deprivation of ownership. [26] Thus, the fact that the properties were registered in the name of Joaquin Agtarap, married to Caridad Garcia, is not sufficient proof that the properties were acquired during the spouses' coverture. [27] The phrase "married to Caridad Garcia" in the TCTs is merely descriptive of the civil status of Joaquin as the registered owner, and does not necessarily prove that the realties are their conjugal properties. [28] | |||||
|
2009-09-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Corollary to this is the doctrine that a determination of whether a person, claiming proprietary rights over the estate of a deceased person, is an heir of the deceased must be ventilated in a special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of settling the estate of the latter. The status of an illegitimate child who claims to be an heir to a decedent's estate cannot be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action, as in a case for the recovery of property.[19] The doctrine applies to the instant case, which is one for specific performance to direct respondent corporation to allow petitioner to exercise rights that pertain only to the deceased and his representatives. | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In the more recent case of Milagros Joaquino v. Lourdes Reyes,[16] the Court reiterated its ruling that matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in the proper probate court in a special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of determining such rights. Citing the case of Agapay v. Palang,[17] this Court held that the status of an illegitimate child who claimed to be an heir to a decedent's estate could not be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action which, as in this case, was for the recovery of property. | |||||