This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-04-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| To warrant a reconveyance of the land, the following requisites must concur: (1) the action must be brought in the name of a person claiming ownership or dominical right over the land registered in the name of the defendant; (2) the registration of the land in the name of the defendant was procured through fraud[24] or other illegal means;[25] (3) the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value;[26] and (4) the action is filed after the certificate of title had already become final and incontrovertible[27] but within four years from the discovery of the fraud,[28] or not later than 10 years in the case of an implied trust.[29] Petitioner failed to show the presence of these requisites. | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala v. Heirs of Honorio Dacut[21] distinguishes an action for reversion from an action for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of title as follows:An ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of title is not the same as an action for reversion. The difference between them lies in the allegations as to the character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified. In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. Hence in Gabila v. Barriga where the plaintiff in his complaint admits that he has no right to demand the cancellation or amendment of the defendant's title because even if the title were canceled or amended the ownership of the land embraced therein or of the portion affected by the amendment would revert to the public domain, we ruled that the action was for reversion and that the only person or entity entitled to relief would be the Director of Lands. | |||||
|
2005-04-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It would have been entirely different if the action were clearly for reversion, in which case, it would have to be instituted by the Solicitor General pursuant to Section 101 of C.A. No. 141, which provides: Sec. 101. All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the [Republic] of the Philippines. In the more recent case of Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala v. Heirs of Honorio Dacut,[30] the difference between an action for declaration of nullity of land titles from an action for reversion was more thoroughly discussed as follows: An ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of title is not the same as an action for reversion. The difference between them lies in the allegations as to the character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified. In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. Hence, in Gabila vs. Barriga [41 SCRA 131], where the plaintiff in his complaint admits that he has no right to demand the cancellation or amendment of the defendant's title because even if the title were canceled or amended the ownership of the land embraced therein or of the portion affected by the amendment would revert to the public domain, we ruled that the action was for reversion and that the only person or entity entitled to relief would be the Director of Lands. | |||||