Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARINA LLEMOS v. ROMEO LLEMOS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175763 2012-04-11	HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO v. SALOME E. GABRIEL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
An action for annulment of title or reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession of the property subject of the acts.[35] The totality of the evidence on record established that it was petitioners who are in actual possession of the subject property; respondents merely insinuated at occasional visits to the land. However, for an action for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, this Court has held that the party seeking reconveyance must prove by clear and convincing evidence his title to the property and the fact of fraud.[36]
	GR No. 176841 2010-06-29	ANTHONY ORDUÑA v. EDUARDO J. FUENTEBELLA VELASCO JR., J.
The basic complaint, as couched, ultimately seeks the reconveyance of a fraudulently registered piece of residential land. Having possession of the subject lot, petitioners' right to the reconveyance thereof, and the annulment of the covering title, has not prescribed or is not time-barred. This is so for an action for annulment of title or reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible where the suitor is in possession of the property subject of the acts,[36] the action partaking as it does of a suit for quieting of title which is imprescriptible.[37] Such is the case in this instance. Petitioners have possession of subject lots as owners having purchased the same from Gabriel, Sr. subject only to the full payment of the agreed price.
	GR No. 182673 2009-10-05	AQUALAB PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF MARCELINO PAGOBO VELASCO JR., J.
Verily, an action for annulment of title or reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession of the property subject of the acts.[31] And the prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title, if the plaintiff is not in possession.[32] Thus, one who is in actual possession of a piece of land on a claim of ownership thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right.[33]
	GR No. 162886 2008-08-11	HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA ASUNCION ARCILLA v. MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners question the validity of the above-mentioned documents. However, as the CA, RTC and MTC found, these documents are all notarized. It is settled that a notarized document is executed to lend truth to the statements contained therein and to the authenticity of the signatures.[41] Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity which can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence.[42]