This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-02-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| However, the principle of indefeasibility does not apply when the patent and the title based thereon are null and void. An action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and is susceptible to direct, as well as to collateral, attack.[26] OCT No. P-30187 was registered on the basis of a free patent which the RTC ruled was issued by the Director of Lands without authority.[27] The petitioners falsely claimed that the land was public land when in fact it was not as it was private land previously owned by Carmen who inherited it from her parents. This finding was affirmed by the CA. There is no reason to reverse it.[28] | |||||
|
2004-07-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner argues that these rules do not apply to him. Citing Ferrer v. Bautista,[47] petitioner alleges that the Spouses Galang's title is void ab initio because it originated from the allegedly void title issued to VRC. The Court held in Ferrer that a void title is susceptible to direct and collateral attack.[48] | |||||
|
2003-12-05 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Finally, petitioners' right of action is barred neither by prescription nor by laches. This action seeks a declaration of nullity of private respondent's reconstituted title on the ground, among others, of lack of jurisdiction. Such action does not prescribe.[21] As for laches, we must not lose sight of the basic postulate that it is a doctrine of equity which should never be used as a shield for fraud or wrongdoing by the very party responsible therefor.[22] The private respondent, operating under its previous name, was an active participant in the wrongful use and subsequent disappearance of the source document used in the reconstitution. Under such circumstances, private respondent cannot invoke laches to defeat petitioners' right to assail the validity of the reconstituted title because laches cannot be applied when manifest wrong or injustice will result.[23] | |||||