Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BETTY B. LACBAYAN v. BAYANI S. SAMOY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 187524 2015-08-05	SPS. MARIA BUTIONG v. MA. GRACIA RIÑOZA PLAZO PERALTA, J.
An action for partition, therefore, is premised on the existence or non-existence of co-ownership between the parties.[42] Unless and until the issue of co-ownership is definitively resolved, it would be premature to effect a partition of an estate.[43]
	GR No. 196750 2015-03-11	MA. ELENA R. DIVINAGRACIA v. CORONACION PARILLA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Santiago's contention that he had already bought the interests of the majority of the heirs and, thus, they should no longer be regarded as indispensable parties deserves no merit. As correctly noted by the CA, in actions for partition, the court cannot properly issue an order to divide the property, unless it first makes a determination as to the existence of co-ownership. The court must initially settle the issue of ownership, which is the first stage in an action for partition.[36] Indubitably, therefore, until and unless this issue of co-ownership is definitely and finally resolved, it would be premature to effect a partition of the disputed properties.[37]
	GR No. 202370 2013-09-23	JUAN SEVILLA SALAS v. EDEN VILLENA AGUILA CARPIO, J.
Since the original manifestation was an action for partition, this Court cannot order a division of the property, unless it first makes a determination as to the existence of a co-ownership.[19] Thus, the settlement of the issue of ownership is the first stage in this action.[20]
	GR Nos. 187308 & 187517 2013-09-18	HILARIA BAGAYAS v. ROGELIO BAGAYAS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In Lacbayan v. Samoy, Jr.[41] (Lacbayan) which is an action for partition premised on the existence or non-existence of co-ownership between the parties, the Court categorically pronounced that a resolution on the issue of ownership does not subject the Torrens title issued over the disputed realties to a collateral attack. It must be borne in mind that what cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title itself. As pronounced in Lacbayan:There is no dispute that a Torrens certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked, but that rule is not material to the case at bar. What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title itself. The certificate referred to is that document issued by the Register of Deeds known as the TCT. In contrast, the title referred to by law means ownership which is, more often than not, represented by that document. Petitioner apparently confuses title with the certificate of title. 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.[42] (Emphases supplied)
	GR No. 187677 2013-04-17	REPUBLIC v. ROSA SAMSON-TATAD SERENO, C.J.
In several instances, we have considered an Answer praying for the cancellation of the plaintiff's Torrens title as a form of a collateral attack.[34] We have afforded the similar treatment in a petition questioning the validity of a deed of sale for a registered land,[35] and in a reformation of a deed of sale to include areas registered under the name of another party.[36] But a resolution on the issue of ownership in a partition case was deemed neither to be a direct or collateral attack, for "until and unless this issue of co-ownership is definitely and finally resolved, it would be premature to effect a partition of the disputed properties."[37]
	GR No. 151334 2013-02-13	CAROLINA VDA. DE FIGURACION v. EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA REYES, J.
Mere issuance of a 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 over the property subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title.[36] Stated differently, placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. The certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership.[37] In this case, co-ownership of Lot No. 707 was precisely what respondent Emilia was able to successfully establish, as correctly found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.