This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic,[36] citing Republic v. Court of Appeals,[37] this Court stressed the fact that it was never proven that private respondent St. Jude was a party to the fraud that led to the increase in the area of the property after it was sub-divided. In the same case, citing Republic v. Umali,[38] we held that, in a reversion case, even if the original grantee of a patent and title has obtained the same through fraud, reversion will no longer prosper as the land had become private land and the fraudulent acquisition cannot affect the titles of innocent purchasers for value. | |||||
|
2007-10-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Republic v. Court of Appeals is reinforced by our ruling in Republic v. Umali,[25] where, in a reversion case, we held that even if the original grantee of a patent and title has obtained the same through fraud, reversion will no longer prosper as the land had become private land and the fraudulent acquisition cannot affect the titles of innocent purchasers for value. | |||||