Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GASPAR CALACALA v. REPUBLIC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 169135 2010-06-18	JOSE DELOS REYES v. JOSEPHINE ANNE B. RAMNANI DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is, likewise, not disputed that petitioner failed to redeem the subject property within one year from the annotation of the certificate of sale on TCT No. 480537. The expiration of the one-year redemption period foreclosed petitioner's right to redeem the subject property and the sale thereby became absolute. The issuance thereafter of a final certificate of sale is a mere formality and confirmation of the title that is already vested in respondent.[10] Thus, the trial court properly granted the motion for issuance of the final certificate of sale.
	GR No. 173289 2010-02-17	ELAND PHILIPPINES v. AZUCENA GARCIA PERALTA, J.
Based on the foregoing, this Court deems it necessary to delve briefly on the nature of the action of quieting of title as applied in this case. This Court's ruling in Calacala, et al. v. Republic, et al.[53] is instructive on this matter, thus: To begin with, it bears emphasis that an action for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity. As we held in Baricuatro, Jr. vs. CA:[54]
	GR No. 176929 2008-07-04	INOCENCIO Y. LUCASAN FOR HIMSELF v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER NACHURA, J.
ART. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject-matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property. To avail of the remedy of quieting of title, two (2) indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.[20] Stated differently, the plaintiff must show that he has a legal or at least an equitable title over the real property in dispute, and that some deed or proceeding beclouds its validity or efficacy.
	GR NO. 162037 2006-11-29	HEIRS OF ENRIQUE DIAZ v. ELINOR A. VIRATA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Further, Article 477[72] of the same Code mandates that in an action to quiet title, the party bringing the action must have a legal or, at least, an equitable title[73] to the real property subject of the action and that the alleged cloud[74] on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid. Verily, for an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.[75]
	GR NO. 162037 2006-08-07	HEIRS OF ENRIQUE DIAZ v. ELINOR A. VIRATA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Further, Article 477[72] of the same Code mandates that in an action to quiet title, the party bringing the action must have a legal or, at least, an equitable title[73] to the real property subject of the action and that the alleged cloud[74] on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid. Verily, for an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.[75]
	GR NO. 150274 2006-08-06	IN MATTER TO DECLARE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT SIMEON A. DATUMANONG IN LATTER''S CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws cannot be considered violative of any personal rights because no vested right may attach to nor arise therefrom.[19]
	GR NO. 160514 2006-06-30	GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v. TIRSO UYTENGSU III CORONA, J.
"Under Article 476 of the New Civil Code, the remedy [of quieting of title] may be availed of only when, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding, which appears valid but is, in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, a cloud is thereby casts on the complainant's title to real property or any interest therein."[16]
	GR NO. 168222 2006-04-18	SPS. TEODULO RUMARATE v. HILARIO HERNANDEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In an action for quieting of title, the court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the parties so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be forever free from any danger of hostile claim.[26] Under Article 476[27] of the Civil Code, the remedy may be availed of only when, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding, which appears valid but is, in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, a cloud is thereby cast on the complainant's title to real property or any interest therein. Article 477 of the same Code states that the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the suit.