This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-06-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The RTC was, thus, correct in denying petitioner's "Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Pleading and to Admit Attached Supplemental Complaint For Reconveyance." Allowing it would not have been permissible because the application for original registration of title over a parcel of land already registered is a collateral attack itself. It is settled that an application for registration of a parcel of land already covered by a Torrens title is actually a collateral attack, not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title.[13] | |||||
|
2009-02-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In view of the nature of a Torrens title, a land registration court has the duty to determine whether the issuance of a new certificate of title will alter a valid and existing certificate of title.[24] An application for registration of an already titled land constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title, [25] which is not allowed by law.[26] But the RTC need not wait for the decision of the DENR in the petition to cancel the survey plan in order to determine whether the subject property is already titled or forms part of already titled property. The court may now verify this allegation based on the respondent's survey plan vis-à-vis the certificates of title of the petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest. After all, a survey plan precisely serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous land registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent registration of any adjoining land.[27] | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. The rationale behind the Torrens System is that the public should be able to rely on a registered title. The Torrens System was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized. In Fil-estate Management, Inc. v. Trono,[33] we explained:It has been invariably stated that the real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casa" to avoid the possibility of losing his land.[34] Petitioner merely invoked the invalidity of OCT No. P-6176 as an affirmative defense in his answer and prayed for the declaration of its nullity. Such a defense partook of the nature of a collateral attack against a certificate of title.[35] | |||||