Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 175936 2007-09-03	CHAN CUAN v. CHIANG KAI SHEK COLLEGE GARCIA, J.
Injunction is accepted as the strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy to be used cautiously and sparingly as it affects the respective rights of the parties, and only upon full conviction on the part of the court of its extreme necessity should it issue.[26] We do not see that necessity at this point.
	GR NO. 133168 2006-03-28	REPUBLIC v. BENJAMIN GUERRERO GARCIA, J.
While the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to lands but merely a system of registration of titles to lands,[35] justice and equity demand that the titleholder should not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of the State's agents, in the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third persons. The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title, except claims that were noted in the certificate at the time of the registration or that may arise subsequent thereto.[36] Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system shall forever be sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration officials, who are ordinarily presumed to have regularly performed their duties.[37]
	GR No. 111715 2000-06-08	MANUEL SILVESTRE BERNARDO and the HEIRS OF JOSE P. BERNARDO namely v. SANTOS GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The "merger" of the two causes of action is thus justified. Since the controversy revolves around a land title dispute, the pertinent laws thereon must be considered in determining the procedural aspect of the case. Under the law, once a decree of registration is issued under the Torrens system and the one-year period from the issuance of the decree of registration has lapsed without said decree being controverted by any adverse party, the title becomes perfect and cannot later on be questioned.[46] The Bernardos' complaint was aimed at nullifying private respondents' respective titles; the existence of such titles was therefore a determinative factor as far as the matter of jurisdiction was concerned. Hence, the Bernardos' allegation that the properties covered by said titles overlapped that covered by TCT No. 12658 created an indubitable nexus between the reconstituted title and the titles of private respondents.