This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-04-03 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In Arangote v. Maglunob,[20] the Court, after distinguishing between direct and collateral attack, classified a counterclaim under former, viz: The attack is considered direct when the object of an action is to annul or set aside such proceeding, or enjoin its enforcement. Conversely, an attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof. Such action to attack a certificate of title may be an original action or a counterclaim, in which a certificate of title is assailed as void.[21] (Citation omitted and emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2010-12-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The above findings of fact of the trial court must be accorded respect. It is a hornbook doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. It is not a function of this Court to analyze and weigh evidence by the parties all over again.[17] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The above-cited article covers cases in which the builders, sowers or planters believe themselves to be owners of the land or, at least, to have a claim of title thereto.[15] The builder in good faith can compel the landowner to make a choice between appropriating the building by paying the proper indemnity or obliging the builder to pay the price of the land. The choice belongs to the owner of the land, a rule that accords with the principle of accession, i.e., that the accessory follows the principal and not the other way around. However, even as the option lies with the landowner, the grant to him, nevertheless, is preclusive. He must choose one.[16] He cannot, for instance, compel the owner of the building to remove the building from the land without first exercising either option. It is only if the owner chooses to sell his land, and the builder or planter fails to purchase it where its value is not more than the value of the improvements, that the owner may remove the improvements from the land. The owner is entitled to such remotion only when, after having chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same.[17] | |||||