This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Secondly, as early as 2001 in Pinlac v. Court of Appeals,[11] the Court categorically struck down the Partial Decision issued in Civil Case No. Q-35672, upon which herein petitioners base their claim that respondents' TCTs are spurious. The Court ruled that said Partial Decision was null and void. Thus, in Cañete v. Genuino Ice Company, Inc.,[12] the Court emphasized that: First, their initial claim that OCT 614 - of which all the other subject titles are derivatives - is null and void, has been proven wrong. As held in Pinlac and other cases, OCT 614 did legally exist and was previously issued in the name of the Philippine Government in 1910 under the provisions of Act 496. | |||||
|
2000-11-22 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Costs of suit."[5] | |||||