Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JESUS P. LIAO v. CA I. C. CRUZ CONSTRUCTION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 152407 2007-09-21	SPS. FLORENDO DAUZ AND HELEN DAUZ AND SPS. IGNACIO REAMBONANZA AND FRANCISCA REAMBONANZA v. SPS. ELIGIO AND LORENZA ECHAVEZ AND CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. In April 1982, respondents caused the registration of the sale of the 1,295-square meter portion of the land; and on January 25, 1989, the sale of the remaining 7,616 square meters in the Registry of the Deeds. Petitioners (spouses Dauz), on the other hand, failed to cause the registration of the sale to them in the Registry of Deeds. Where both parties claim to have purchased the same property, as in this case, Article 1544 cited above provides that as between two purchasers, the one who registered the sale in his favor has a preferred right over the other who has not registered his title, even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable property.[8]
	GR No. 130876 2003-12-05	FRANCISCO ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Contrary to petitioners' protestations, we squarely resolved the core issues of fraud and want of jurisdiction afflicting the reconstitution of respondent's title. While we held that the issue of the validity of respondent's title is factual which cannot be reviewed on appeal, nevertheless, we have answered each ground raised by petitioner in assailing respondent's title.[7] Needless to stress, mere allegations of fraud are not enough.[8] Fraud is never presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence,[9] mere preponderance of evidence not even being adequate.[10] As we have held in Saguid vs. Court of Appeals, contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the party's own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent's defense. [11] Petitioners failed to discharge that burden.
	GR No. 130876 2003-12-05	FRANCISCO ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Now, I address the Solid State[51] ruling and the obiter dictum in Liao v. Court of Appeals[52] on which the Decision and the Revised Draft Resolution are anchored.
	GR No. 130876 2003-12-05	FRANCISCO ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The main issue raised before the Court of Appeals per the Montoya ponencia was whether the RTC, as a land court, had jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution of title,[73] and in the other two cases whether a branch of the RTC could nullify the decision of another branch thereof.[74] Accordingly, the Court of Appeals resolved the cases mainly on said issues.[75]
	GR No. 109111 2000-06-28	CARMELINO M. SANTIAGO v. CA PARDO, J.
We hold that if petitioners' predecessors were truly the owners of the subject parcels of land, they would have taken steps to have the land properly titled long ago. The land was possessed by MWSS long before World War II. That was over sixty (60) years ago! Petitioners "slept on the rights" they claim to possess. Relief is denied to a claimant whose right has become "stale" by reason of negligence or inattention for a long period of time.[17]