Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ELPIDIO APOSTOL AND AMELIA APOSTOL v. CA AND SPS. EMMANUEL CHUA AND EDNA L. CHUA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 151240 2009-03-31	ANGELINE CATORES v. MARY D. AFIDCHAO NACHURA, J.
As the registered owner is entitled to the possession of the property from the time the title thereof was issued in her favor,[38] and preponderance of evidence being in favor of respondent, there can be no other conclusion but that respondent should be placed in possession thereof. All told, the CA committed no reversible error in rendering the assailed Decision.
	GR No. 140752 2005-11-11	DIONISIO CARAAN v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court cannot, therefore, resolve the issue of the alleged invalidity of private respondents' certificate of title in the present action for recovery of possession. Even petitioners' claim that subject property could not have been titled in favor of private respondents because the same has not yet been classified for alienation for private ownership, cannot be given consideration because, as clearly stated in Apostol vs. Court of Appeals, "[t]he issue of the validity of the title of respondents can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for that purpose."[11]
	GR NO. 132197 2005-08-16	ROSS RICA SALES CENTER v. SPS. GERRY ONG AND ELIZABETH ONG TINGA, J.
In Apostol v. Court of Appeals,[27] this Court had the occasion to clarify this:. . . Under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding for that purpose in accordance with law. The issue of the validity of the title of the respondents can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. Whether or not the petitioners have the right to claim ownership over the property is beyond the power of the court a quo to determine in an action for unlawful detainer.[28]