This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court discussed lengthily in Republic v. Court of Appeals[159] the indefeasibility of a decree of registration/certificate of title vis-à-vis the remedy of reversion available to the State: The petitioner invokes Republic v. Animas, where this Court declared that a title founded on fraud may be cancelled notwithstanding the lapse of one year from the issuance thereof. Thus: | |||||
|
2007-10-04 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| It cannot be over-emphasized at this stage that the special civil action of certiorari is limited to resolving only errors of jurisdiction; it is not a remedy to correct errors of judgment. Hence, the petitioner's lament, partly covered by and discussed under the first ground for allowing its petition, about the trial court taking cognizance of the case notwithstanding private respondent's claim or action being barred by prescription and/or laches cannot be considered favorably. For, let alone the fact that an action for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract, as here, does not prescribe;[27] that a void transfer of property can be recovered by accion reivindicatoria;[28] and that the legal fiction of indefeasibility of a Torrens title cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate fraud,[29] the trial court's disinclination not to appreciate in favor of the Republic the general principles of prescription or laches constitutes, at best, errors of judgment not correctable by certiorari. | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On the petitioner's claim that its titles to the subject lots have been rendered indefeasible, the pronouncement of the Court in Republic v. Court of Appeals[26] is instructive:It is true that under Section 122 of the Land Registration Act, a Torrens title issued on the basis of a free patent or a homestead patent is as indefeasible as one judicially secured. And in repeated previous decisions of this Court that indefeasibility has been emphasized by our holding that not even the Government can file an action for annulment, but at the same time, it has been made clear that an action for reversion may be instituted by the Solicitor General, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. It is also to the public interest that one who succeeds in fraudulently acquiring title to a public land should not be allowed to benefit therefrom, and the State should, therefore, have an even existing authority, thru its duly-authorized officers, to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the issuance of any such title, to the end that the Republic, thru the Solicitor General or any other officer who may be authorized by law, may file the corresponding action for the reversion of the land involved to the public domain, subject thereafter to disposal to other qualified persons in accordance with law. In other words, the indefeasibility of a title over land previously public is not a bar to an investigation by the Director of Lands as to how such title has been acquired, if the purpose of such investigation is to determine whether or not fraud had been committed in securing such title in order that the appropriate action for reversion may be filed by the Government.[27] | |||||