Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELAND PHILIPPINES v. AZUCENA GARCIA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 198878 2014-10-15	RESIDENTS OF LOWER ATAB v. STA. MONICA INDUSTRIAL DEL CASTILLO, J.
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must be present, namely: "(1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy."[28]
	GR No. 175542 & 183205 2013-06-05	GREEN ACRES HOLDINGS v. VICTORIA P. CABRAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.[51]
	GR No. 180076 2012-11-21	DIONISIO MANANQUIL v. ROBERTO MOICO DEL CASTILLO, J.
An action for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity. The competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, not only to place things in their proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems best. But "for an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy."[7]
	GR No. 170658 2011-06-22	ANICETO CALUBAQUIB v. REPUBLIC DEL CASTILLO, J.
"A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [the] moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." [36] The test of the propriety of rendering summary judgments is the existence of a genuine issue of fact, [37] "as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim." [38] "[A] factual issue raised by a party is considered as sham when by its nature it is evident that it cannot be proven or it is such that the party tendering the same has neither any sincere intention nor adequate evidence to prove it. This usually happens in denials made by defendants merely for the sake of having an issue and thereby gaining delay, taking advantage of the fact that their answers are not under oath anyway." [39]
	GR No. 167391 2011-06-08	PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT v. MAXIMO BONIFACIO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, two requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.[40]