Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SALVADOR S. ESQUIVIAS v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 149231 2006-07-17	ARACLEO ERASUSTA v. AMORIN GARCIA, J.
Of course it is beyond cavil that the fraudulent registration of the property in the forger Valenzuela's name using the forged deed of sale is not sufficient to vest title to the property in him. Settled is the rule that a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title;[12] registration does not vest title, it is merely evidence of such title over a particular property.[13] Certificates of title merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, nor to permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others.[14] The Torrens system has never been recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership.[15]
	AC. NO. 5637 2005-04-12	CRISTINA A. ARIENDA v. ATTY. PORFIRIO AGUILA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We are not unmindful of the principle that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, in that they are neither civil nor criminal actions but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers.[17] However, although these proceedings are not, in the strict sense, ordinary actions where trials are held and the rules of procedure apply, the rules on evidence cannot be shunted aside considering that the exercise of one's profession is at stake.[18]
	GR NO. 161861 2005-03-11	SPS. WILLIAM AND JULIE LIM v. CHUATOCO TINGA, J.
The fraudulent registration of the property in Rafael's name using the forged deed of sale is not sufficient to vest title to the entire property in him. Settled is the rule that a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title;[12] registration does not vest title, it is merely evidence of such title over a particular property.[13] Certificates of title merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, nor to permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others.[14] The Torrens sytem has never been recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership.[15]
	GR No. 112443 2002-01-25	TERESITA P. BORDALBA v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is a settled rule that the Land Registration Act protects only holders of title in good faith, and does not permit its provision to be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, or as a means to enrich oneself at the expense of others.[17]