This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-04-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein.[33] Thus, notwithstanding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title, the registered owner may still be compelled to reconvey the registered property to its true owners. The rationale for the rule is that reconveyance does not set aside or re-subject to review the findings of fact of the Bureau of Lands. In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property or its title which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name, to its rightful or legal owner, or to the one with a better right.[34] | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Applying the law, we held in Bautista v. Fule that the registration of an instrument involving unregistered land in the Registry of Deeds creates constructive notice and binds third person who may subsequently deal with the same property.[63] x x x (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-06-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The registration of a land under the Torrens system does not create or vest title, because registration is not one of the modes of acquiring ownership. A TCT is merely an evidence of ownership over a particular property and its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the property may be co-owned by persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered owner.[35] | |||||
|
2010-02-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Significantly, in the pleadings filed before the trial court and in the appellate court, petitioners were steadfast in their position that the crime was committed in furtherance of rebellion, obviously to escape criminal liability for the present charge. This is judicial admission that they indeed committed the crime. A judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it. He cannot thereafter take a position contradictory to or inconsistent with his pleading. Acts or facts admitted do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.[24] Moreover, when a party adopts a certain theory in the court below, he is not allowed to change his theory on appeal, for to allow him to do so would not only be unfair to the other party but would also be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[25] | |||||
|
2008-08-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Court notes with disfavor the sudden change in the theory by petitioner Quasha Law Office. Consistent with discussions in the preceding paragraphs, Quasha Law Office initially asserted itself as co-administrator of the estate before the courts. The records do not belie this fact. Petitioner Quasha Law Office later on denied it was substituted in the place of Atty. Quasha as administrator of the estate only upon filing a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, and then again before this Court. As a general rule, a party cannot change his theory of the case or his cause of action on appeal.[26] When a party adopts a certain theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal, for to permit him to do so would not only be unfair to the other party but it would also be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[27] Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage.[28] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In a contract of sale, it is essential that the seller is the owner of the property he is selling.[12] Under Article 1458 of the Civil Code, the principal obligation of a seller is to transfer the ownership of the property sold.[13] Also, Article 1459 of the Civil Code provides that the thing must be licit and the vendor must have a right to transfer the ownership thereof at the time it is delivered. Maxima's execution of the Deed of Sale selling Parcel One, part of which is respondents' one half northern portion, was not valid and did not transfer ownership of the land to petitioners, as Maxima had no title or interest to transfer. It is an established principle that no one can give what one does not have -- nemo dat quod non habet. Accordingly, one can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more than what the seller can transfer legally.[14] | |||||