Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 175485 2011-07-27	CASIMIRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RENATO L. MATEO BERSAMIN, J.
Yet, registration under the Torrens system, not being a mode of acquiring ownership, does not create or vest title. [14] The Torrens certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title in the particular property described therein. [15] In that sense, the issuance of the certificate of title to a particular person does not preclude the possibility that persons not named in the certificate may be co-owners of the real property therein described with the person named therein, or that the registered owner may be holding the property in trust for another person. [16]
	GR NO. 152627 2005-09-16	SPS. AMANCIO AND LUISA SARMIENTO AND PEDRO OGSINER v. CA
The situation at bar can be likened to a case for recovery of possession wherein the defendant files a counterclaim against the plaintiff attacking the validity of the latter's title. Like a third-party complaint, a counterclaim is considered an original complaint, as such, the attack on the title in a case originally for recovery of possession cannot be considered as a collateral attack. We thus held in Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) v. Court of Appeals:[16]
	GR No. 130876 2003-12-05	FRANCISCO ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
That the sales patent issued in petitioner's name has not been registered is of little consequence. Registration, as this Court has repeatedly ruled, does not create or vest title but merely confirms title already created and vested.[49] Thus, the failure to register did not negate petitioner's ownership over the subject property. In any case, petitioner having complied with all the requirements of the law, registration should issue as a matter of right.
	GR No. 144225 2003-06-17	SPS. GODOFREDO ALFREDO AND CARMEN LIMON ALFREDO v. SPS. ARMANDO BORRAS AND ADELIA LOBATON BORRAS CARPIO, J.
Article 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. The law thereby creates the obligation of the trustee to reconvey the property and the title thereto in favor of the true owner. Correlating Section 53, paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 and Article 1456 of the Civil Code with Article 1144(2) of the Civil Code, supra, the prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property is ten (10) years reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title xxx (Emphasis supplied)[46] Following Caro, we have consistently held that an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in ten years.[47] We went further by specifying the reference point of the ten-year prescriptive period as the date of the registration of the deed or the issuance of the title.[48]
	GR No. 151440 2003-06-17	HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO SANTIAGO v. HEIRS OF MARIANO E. SANTIAGO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In this case, while the original complaint filed by the petitioners was for recovery of possession, or accion publiciana, and the nullity of the title was raised merely as respondents' defense, we can rule on the validity of the free patent and OCT No. P-10878 because of the counterclaim filed by respondents. A counterclaim can be considered a direct attack on the title. In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court Appeals,[40] we ruled on the validity of a certificate of title despite the fact that the nullity thereof was raised only as a counterclaim. It was held that a counterclaim is considered a complaint, only this time, it is the original defendant who becomes the plaintiff. It stands on the same footing and is to be tested by the same rules as if it were an independent action. Moreover, since all the facts necessary in the determination of the title's validity are now before the Court, it would be in the best interest of justice to settle this issue which has already dragged on for 19 years.[41]
	GR No. 142015 2003-04-29	RURAL BANK OF STA. IGNACIA v. PELAGIA DIMATULAC QUISUMBING, J.
In the present case, while petitioner sent a representative to verify the original TCT on file with the Registrar of Deeds, no ocular inspection of the premises took place. Judicial notice may be taken of the common practice of banks, before approving a loan, to send a representative to the premises of the land offered as collateral and duly investigate who are the true owners thereof. Failure to do so is negligence on the part of a bank.[25] Had petitioner taken extra steps, time and effort in dealing with the property it purchased by conducting proper ocular inspection of the premises, it could have discovered early the presence of settlers therein who are land reform beneficiaries.