This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-12-27 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Likewise, the claim of respondents that they became owners of the property by acquisitive prescription has no merit. Truth to tell, respondents cannot successfully invoke the argument of extinctive prescription. They cannot be deemed the owners by acquisitive prescription of the portion of the property they have been possessing. The reason is that the property was covered by OCT No. 352. A title once registered under the torrens system cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession; neither can it be defeated by prescription.[76] It is notice to the whole world and as such all persons are bound by it and no one can plead ignorance of the registration.[77] | |||||
|
2004-02-18 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| B. WHICH COURT SHALL A PETITION QUESTIONING THE RESOLUTION OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT BE FILED: COURT OF APPEALS OR TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT.[13] The instant petition for certiorari should be dismissed. The proper action to file is an appeal by petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners received a copy of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals on November 10, 2000; hence they had until November 25, 2000 within which to file a petition for review. The petition for certiorari filed by petitioners on December 6, 2000 cannot be a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.[14] | |||||