This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-01-31 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The insistence of Ongjoco is unfounded. The essential purpose of the constitutional provision is to require that a judicial decision be clear on why a party has prevailed under the law as applied to the facts as proved; the provision nowhere demands that a point-by-point consideration and resolution of the issues raised by the parties are necessary.[12] Cogently, the Court has said in Tichangco v. Enriquez,[13] to wit: This constitutional provision deals with the disposition of petitions for review and of motions for reconsideration. In appellate courts, the rule does not require any comprehensive statement of facts or mention of the applicable law, but merely a statement of the "legal basis" for denying due course. | |||||
|
2010-02-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Ordinary Decree Book, LRC (CLR) Rec. No. 6763, showing that Decree No. 4244 was issued on March 3, 1911, is presumed to have been regularly issued by the accountable public officers who enjoy the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions. Thus, the proceedings that led to the issuance of Decree No. 4244 in favor of the Municipality of Cabuyao cannot be overturned without any countervailing proof to the contrary. In the words of Tichangco v. Enriquez:[32] | |||||
|
2009-02-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The fundamental purpose of the Land Registration Law (Presidential Decree No. 1529) is to finally settle title to real property in order to preempt any question on the legality of the title - except claims that were noted on the certificate itself at the time of registration or those that arose subsequent thereto. Consequently, once the title is registered under the said law, owners can rest secure on their ownership and possession.[19] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The petitioner's titles to the subject properties have acquired the character of indeafeasibility, being registered under the Torrens System of registration. Once a decree of registration is made under the Torrens System, and the reglementary period has passed within which the decree may be questioned, the title is perfected and cannot be collaterally questioned later on.[45] To permit a collateral attack on petitioner's title, such as what respondents attempt, would reduce the vaunted legal indeafeasibility of a Torrens title to meaningless verbiage.[46] It has, therefore, become an ancient rule that the issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[47] | |||||
|
2006-09-05 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT GRANTED TO AWARD 50 OTHER PERSONS WHO ARE NOT PARTIES OR PRIVIES TO THE INSTANT CASE. IN FINE, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED AWARDS TO THOSE WITH WHOM IT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION.[19] At the outset, we note that this case was brought before us via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The proper remedy, however, was to file a petition under Rule 45. It must be stressed that certiorari under Rule 65 is "a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop." [20] Moreover, the special civil action for certiorari will lie only when a court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[21] | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In other words, indefeasibility and imprescriptibility are the cornerstones of land registration proceedings. Barring any mistake or use of fraud in the procurement of the title, owners may rest secure on their ownership and possession once their title is registered under the protective mantle of the Torrens system. Thus, once a decree of registration is made under the Torrens system, and the reglementary period has passed within which the decree may be questioned, the title is perfected and cannot be collaterally questioned later on.[9] | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| More, the title to the land of Ferreira has acquired the character of indeafeasibility having been registered under the Torrens system of registration. Once a decree of registration is made under the Torrens system, and the reglementary period has passed within which the decree may be questioned, the title is perfected and cannot be collaterally questioned later on.[38] To permit a collateral attack on his title, such as what petitioner now attempts, would reduce the vaunted legal indeafeasibility of Torrens Title to meaningless verbiage.[39] A Torrens Title cannot be collaterally attacked.[40] A direct attack against a judgment is made through an action or proceeding the main object of which is to annul, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of such judgment, if not yet carried into effect; or, if the property has been disposed of, the aggrieved party may sue for recovery.[41] A collateral attack is made when, in another action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is made as an incident in said action.[42] | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,[31] every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, or one "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit." Corollarily, legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged act. Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected by the questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question involved.[32] | |||||