This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2005-03-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners cannot rely on the registration of the disputed property and the corresponding issuance of a certificate of title in their name as vesting ownership on them simply because an express trust over the property was created in favor of respondents. It has been held that a trustee who obtains a Torrens title over the property held in trust by him for another cannot repudiate the trust by relying on the registration.[46] | |||||
|
2005-01-17 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari, the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generally confined only to errors of law,[21] questions of fact are not entertained.[22] Thus, only questions of law may be brought by the parties and passed upon by this Court in the exercise of its power to review.[23] Also, judicial review by this Court does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination.[24] | |||||
|
2004-08-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Nothing is farther from the truth than this contention. A trustee who obtains a Torrens title over a property held in trust for him by another cannot repudiate the trust by relying on the registration.[60] A Torrens Certificate of Title in Jose's name did not vest ownership of the land upon him. The Torrens system does not create or vest title. It only confirms and records title already existing and vested. It does not protect a usurper from the true owner.[61] The Torrens system was not intended to foment betrayal in the performance of a trust.[62] It does not permit one to enrich himself at the expense of another. Where one does not have a rightful claim to the property, the Torrens system of registration can confirm or record nothing.[63] Petitioners cannot rely on the registration of the lands in Jose's name nor in the name of the Heirs of Jose M. Ringor, Inc., for the wrong result they seek. For Jose could not repudiate a trust by relying on a Torrens title he held in trust for his co-heirs.[64] The beneficiaries are entitled to enforce the trust, notwithstanding the irrevocability of the Torrens title. The intended trust must be sustained. | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Since the original Complaint 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.[12] The settlement of the issue of ownership is the first stage in an action for partition.[13] This action will not lie if the claimant has no rightful interest in the subject property. Parties filing the action are in fact required by the Rules of Court[14] to set forth in their complaint the nature and the extent of their title to the property. It would be premature to effect a partition thereof until and unless the question of ownership is first definitely resolved.[15] | |||||