Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TOSINO v. SPS. ANDRES T. ROSARIO AND LENA DUQUE-ROSARIO AND BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 202805 2015-03-23	ROSARIO BANGUIS-TAMBUYAT v. WENIFREDA BALCOM-TAMBUYAT DEL CASTILLO, J.
The certificate referred to is that document issued by the Register of Deeds known as the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). By title, the law refers to ownership which is represented by that document. Petitioner apparently confuses certificate with title. Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. Ownership is different from a certificate of title. The TCT is only the best proof of ownership of a piece of land. Besides, the certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not named in the certificate or that the registrant may only be a trustee or that other parties may have acquired interest subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title. To repeat, registration is not the equivalent of title, but is only the best evidence thereof. Title as a concept of ownership should not be confused with the certificate of title as evidence of such ownership although both are interchangeably used. x x x. Registration does not vest title; it is merely the evidence of such title. Land registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually has.[48]
	GR No. 193551 2014-11-19	HEIRS OF GREGORIO LOPEZ v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES LEONEN, J.
One of the requisites of a valid mortgage contract is ownership of the property being mortgaged.[77] Article 2085 of the Civil Code enumerates the requisites of a mortgage contract: Art. 2085. The following requisites are essential to the contracts of pledge and mortgage:
	GR No. 178451 2014-07-30	RURAL BANK OF CABADBARAN v. JORGITA A. MELECIO-YAP PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Finally, the Court cannot subscribe to RBCI's contention that respondents are barred by laches from laying claim over the subject properties in view of their inexplicable inaction from the time they learned of the falsification. Laches is principally a doctrine of equity. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[73] In this case, the complaint for nullification of the SPA was filed before the RTC on April 17, 1996, or barely three years from respondents' discovery of the averred forgery in 1993, which is within the four-year prescriptive period provided under Article 1146[74] of the Civil Code to institute an action upon the injury to their rights over the subject properties. A delay within the prescriptive period is sanctioned by law and is not considered to be a delay that would bar relief. Laches applies only in the absence of a statutory prescriptive period.[75] Furthermore, the doctrine of laches cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud and injustice. It is the more prudent rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when by doing so, manifest wrong or injustice would result,[76] as in this case.
	GR No. 190106 2014-01-15	MAGDALENA T. VILLASI v. SPS. FILOMENO GARCIA PEREZ, J.
While it is a hornbook doctrine that the accessory follows the principal,[31] that is, the ownership of the property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially,[32] such rule is not without exception. In cases where there is a clear and convincing evidence to prove that the principal and the accessory are not owned by one and the same person or entity, the presumption shall not be applied and the actual ownership shall be upheld. In a number of cases, we recognized the separate ownership of the land from the building and brushed aside the rule that accessory follows the principal.
	GR No. 189827 2013-10-16	GERSIP ASSOCIATION v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable ownership in property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter.[19] A trust fund refers to money or property set aside as a trust for the benefit of another and held by a trustee.[20] Under the Civil Code, trusts are classified as either express or implied. An express trust is created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties, while an implied trust comes into being by operation of law.[21]
	GR No. 189316 2013-07-01	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. BERNARD REYES, J.
Rent, as an accessory follow the principal.[37] In fact, when the principal property is mortgaged, the mortgage shall include all natural or civil fruits and improvements found thereon when the secured obligation becomes due as provided in Article 2127 of the Civil Code, viz: Art. 2127. The mortgage extends to the natural accessions, to the improvements, growing fruits, and the rents or income not yet received when the obligation becomes due, and to the amount of the indemnity granted or owing to the proprietor from the insurers of the property mortgaged, or in virtue of expropriation for public use, with the declarations, amplifications and limitations established by law, whether the estate remains in the possession of the mortgagor, or it passes into the hands of a third person.
	GR No. 183058 2013-04-03	SPS. MONTANO T. TOLOSA AND MERLINDA TOLOSA v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERSBANK PEREZ, J.
A writ of possession is simply an order by which the sheriff is commanded by the court to place a person in possession of a real or personal property.[25] Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, a writ of possession may be issued in favor of a purchaser in a foreclosure sale either (1) within the one-year redemption period, upon the filing of a bond; or (2) after the lapse of the redemption period, without need of a bond. Within the one-year redemption period, the purchaser may apply for a writ of possession by filing a petition in the form of an ex parte motion under oath,[26] in the registration or cadastral proceedings of the registered property.[27] The law requires only that the proper motion be filed, the bond approved and no third person is involved.[28] After the consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, entitlement to the writ of possession becomes a matter of right.[29] In the latter case, the right of possession becomes absolute because the basis thereof is the purchaser's ownership of the property.[30]