Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO CHING v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 188575 2012-12-10	GAUDENCIO PACETE v. INOCENCIO ASOTIGUE MENDOZA, J.
Pacete contends that OCT No. V-16654, issued in his name in 1961, is an unassailable evidence of his ownership over the disputed lot having been issued pursuant to the Torrens System of Registration. Citing jurisprudence, he argues that a Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein[9] and that the mere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder of a registered Torrens title to real property.[10] He asserts that he is the legal owner of the lot by virtue of the said title as against Asotigue's claim of ownership based on tax declarations which are not conclusive as evidence of ownership or proof of the area covered therein.[11]
	GR No. 172172 2009-02-24	SPS. ERNESTO V. YU AND ELSIE ONG YU v. BALTAZAR N. PACLEB PUNO, C.J.
Being a judgment in personam, Civil Case No. 741-93 is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded therein and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard.[39] Therefore, it cannot bind respondent since he was not a party therein. Neither can respondent be considered as privy thereto since his signature and that of his late first wife, Angelita Chan, were forged in the deed of sale.
	GR No.123346 2007-12-14	MANOTOK REALTY v. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TINGA, J,
SO ORDERED.[24] The Court acknowledged that the paramount question raised in the petitions is whether the titles issued in the name of Dimson and of CLT are valid. Noting that this question is one purely of fact, the Court held that the same was beyond its power to determine and so, the factual findings of the trial courts in these cases as affirmed by the Court of Appeals must be accorded the highest degree of respect and not disturbed at all.
	GR NO. 147792 2006-01-23	LAZARA P. VIAJE v. PAMINTEL CARPIO, J.
Thus, we affirm the Court of Appeals' ruling upholding the validity of the Deed of Reconveyance and, consequently, of TCT No. T-312870. A Torrens title enjoys the presumption of having been regularly issued.[28]
	GR NO. 144103 2005-08-31	DELA CRUZ v. SABINA MIGUEL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court of Appeals ruled that since respondent has been in peaceful and unmolested possession of the subject land since 1946, petitioners are barred from recovering the same under the principle of laches. In support thereof, it cited the cases of Ching v. Court of Appeals,[36] Caragay-Layno v. Court of Appeals,[37] Heirs of Batiog Lacamen v. Heirs of Laruan,[38] Tambot v. Court of Appeals,[39] Wright, Jr. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.[40] and Vda. de Delima v. Tio.[41]
	GR No. 140228 2004-11-19	FRANCISCO MEDINA v. GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals should not have relied on respondent's allegations regarding the circumstances surrounding the sales and the transfer of the titles. Petitioners point out that trial on the merits of the case is still ongoing and respondent is yet to adduce evidence in support of its contention. The same, however, applies to petitioners' cause of action. They only have their own allegations and are yet to prove their claim. And as stated earlier, the only bases from which the propriety of the injunction can be determined are their respective pleadings and documents. What tilt the balance in respondent's favor are the notarized documents and the titles to the properties. The well-settled rule is that a document acknowledged before a notary public enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. To overcome this presumption, there must be presented evidence that is clear and convincing. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld.[19] In addition, the titles in the name of respondent, having been registered under the Torrens system, are generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein,[20] and a strong presumption exists that the titles are regularly issued and valid.[21] Therefore, until and unless petitioners show that the documents are indeed spurious and the titles invalid, then the presumptions must prevail at this juncture.
	GR No. 150656 2003-04-29	MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS v. ABELARDO B. LICAROS CARPIO, J.
Actions in personam[12] and actions in rem or quasi in rem differ in that actions in personam are directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments. On the other hand, actions in rem or quasi in rem are directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world.[13]
	GR No. 122824 2001-09-26	AURORA F. IGNACIO v. VALERIANO BASILIO QUEZON CITY QUISUMBING, J.
Worthy of note, despite the foregoing rule, petitioner is not without a remedy. The landowner whose property has been wrongfully registered in another's name, after the one year period, could not ask the Court to set aside the decree, but he could bring an ordinary action for damages if, as in this case, the property has passed unto the hands of innocent purchasers for value.[6]