This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Since PCSO had notice of New Dagupan's adverse claim prior to the registration of its mortgage lien, it is bound thereby and thus legally compelled to respect the proceedings on the validity of such adverse claim. It is therefore of no moment if PCSO's foreclosure of the subject mortgage and purchase of the subject property at the auction sale took place prior to New Dagupan's acquisition of title as decreed in the Decision dated January 21, 1994 of RTC Branch 43. The effects of a foreclosure sale retroact to the date the mortgage was registered.[43] Hence, while PCSO may be deemed to have acquired title over the subject property on May 20, 1992, such title is rendered inferior by New Dagupan's adverse claim, the validity of which was confirmed per the Decision dated January 21, 1994 of RTC Branch 43. | |||||
|
2010-03-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, respondents claim ownership of the property based on OCT No. AO-7236. However, a certificate of title is not equivalent to title.[26] In Lee Tek Sheng v. Court of Appeals,[27] we explained: By title, the law refers to ownership which is represented by that document [the Original Certificate of Title or the Transfer Certificate of Title]. Petitioner apparently confuses certificate with title. Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. Ownership is different from a certificate of title. The TCT is only the best proof of ownership of a piece of land. Besides, the certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not named in the certificate or that the registrant may only be a trustee or that other parties may have acquired interest subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title. To repeat, registration is not the equivalent of title, but is only the best evidence thereof. Title as a concept of ownership should not be confused with the certificate of title as evidence of such ownership although both are interchangeable.[28] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2006-11-10 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Respondents presented the original certificate of title, deed of absolute sale, and transfer certificate of title, among others, to prove their claim of ownership. In contrast, petitioners merely introduced as evidence tax declarations and official receipts of tax payments. It is settled law that a certificate of title is the best proof of ownership of a piece of land.[18] The Court categorically declared in Spouses Camara v. Spouses Malabao[19] that a party's declaration of real property, his payment of realty taxes and his designation as owner of the subject property in the cadastral survey or even in the records of an agency such as the former Ministry of Agrarian Reform Office cannot defeat a certificate of title, as the latter is the absolute and indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. | |||||