This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| The foregoing cases on the prescriptibility of actions for reconveyance apply when the action is based on fraud, or when the contract used as basis for the action is voidable. Under Article 1390 of the Civil Code, a contract is voidable when the consent of one of the contracting parties is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. When the consent is totally absent and not merely vitiated, the contract is void.[50] An action for reconveyance may also be based on a void contract.[51] When the action for reconveyance is based on a void contract, as when there was no consent on the part of the alleged vendor, the action is imprescriptible.[52] The property may be reconveyed to the true owner, notwithstanding the TCTs already issued in another's name. The issuance of a certificate of title in the latter's favor could not vest upon him or her ownership of the prope1ty; neither could it validate the purchase thereof which is null and void. Registration does not vest title; it is merely the evidence of such title. Our land registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually has. Being null and void, the sale produces no legal effects whatsoever.[53] | |||||
|
2013-10-14 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The question of whether res judicata serves as a bar to the filing of a case is unquestionably one of law. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the pertinent evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[12] All the court has to do in resolving the applicability of res judicata is apply the undisputed facts of the two cases pitted against each other and determine whether: (a) the former judgment is final; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it is a judgment on the merits; and (d) there is as between the first and second actions identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[13] But the question of whether prescription is applicable can be either one of law or fact. In Macababbad, Jr. v. Masirag,[14] the Court stated that it is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of an allegation of fact; it is a question of law when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a given state of facts.[15] | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Rule 3, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as those parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. They are those parties who possess such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights, so that the courts cannot proceed without their presence. Parties are indispensable if their interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought is inextricably intertwined with that of the other parties.[42] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is true that the Court of Appeals dismissed Tomas' "Petition for Review" on three grounds, namely: improper remedy, lack of certification on non-forum shopping, and failure to append important documents in support of his allegations. It is, however, observed that the Court of Appeals, after considering Tomas' motion for reconsideration of the July 29, 2009 Resolution, ruled in its November 26, 2009 Resolution that Tomas was able to rectify two of the defects of his "Petition for Review"; but maintained that the same was still an inappropriate remedy and, thus, denied the motion. To our mind, if the Court of Appeals accepted the rectification of these two procedural defects after Tomas moved to reconsider the July 29, 2009 Resolution, it should have also treated the "Petition for Review" as an ordinary appeal from the RTC Decision, especially considering that the required Notice of Appeal and the appellate pleading were timely filed. The allegations of the pleading prevail over its title in determining the character of the action taken. The nature of the issues to be raised on appeal can be gleaned from appellant's notice of appeal filed with the trial court and in appellant's brief in the appellate court.[20] | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Even assuming that Glenn Go is an indispensable party to the action, we have held in a number of cases[26] that the misjoinder or non-joinder of indispensable parties in a complaint is not a ground for dismissal of action. As we stated in Macababbad v. Masirag:[27] | |||||