This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-07-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] dated July 31, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV No. 77997. The assailed decision affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC)[2] Decision[3] dated March 22, 2002 in Civil Case No. 208-M-95. | |||||
|
2003-07-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, for purposes of the action for annulment of TCT No. 199241, the only indispensable party-defendant was Renato and his wife. He is the registered owner of the lot and is conclusively presumed, for all intents and purposes, to be its owner in fee simple. A certificate of registration accumulates in one document a precise and correct statement of the exact status of the fee held by its owner which, in the absence of fraud, is the evidence of title showing exactly the owner's real interest over the property covered thereby.[24] Renato thus had the authority to bind the lot to the exclusion of all others and his participation as party-defendant in Civil Case No. 96-208 was sufficient for the trial court to validly exercise its jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2003-07-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| An indispensable party is defined as one without whom no final determination of an action can be had.[25] Necessarily, an indispensable party is likewise a party in interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or is entitled to the avails of the suit.[26] In the instant case, the non-inclusion of petitioners as parties-defendants will not affect the final determination of Civil Case No. 96-208, because they are not the registered owners of the lot. Moreover, it appears that they have ceded their alleged rights to Renato and would therefore have no rightful interest, inchoate or otherwise, that would be affected by the assailed compromise judgment. | |||||