This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-07-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As a determination made by the administrative agency tasked with the disposition of lands transferred to the Republic of the Philippines, the BOL's award and sale of the litigated parcel in favor of Elena deserves utmost respect when supported by substantial evidence. [69] An action for reconveyance of a property is, after all, a legal and equitable remedy [70] available to a landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name, after one year from the date of the decree of registration and so long as the property has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value. [71] The decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible. Where there is a wrongful or erroneous registration in another person's name, the rightful owner or one with a better right can seek reconveyance of the property and cancellation of title. [72] Loreto failed to prove a right than petitioners' over the land. We find that the CA correctly ordered the dismissal of the complaint for reconveyance and damages from which the instant suit originated. | |||||
|
2010-04-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| An OCT issued on the strength of a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued in a judicial proceeding and becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the promulgation of the Director of Lands' order for the issuance of the patent.[15] After the lapse of such period, the sole remedy of a landowner, whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is to file an action for reconveyance so long as the property has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value.[16] In order that an action for reconveyance based on fraud may prosper, it is essential for the party seeking reconveyance to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, his title to the property and the fact of fraud.[17] | |||||
|
2009-04-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| With respect to Section 14(2), petitioners submit that open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of an alienable land of the public domain for more than 30 years ipso jure converts the land into private property, thus placing it under the coverage of Section 14(2). According to them, it would not matter whether the land sought to be registered was previously classified as agricultural land of the public domain so long as, at the time of the application, the property had already been "converted" into private property through prescription. To bolster their argument, petitioners cite extensively from our 2008 ruling in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties.[19] | |||||
|
2007-02-16 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The registration of the properties in petitioner's name did not obliterate the fact that fraud preceded and facilitated such registration. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of misrepresentation of material facts,[10] which in this case was the conscious representation by petitioner's father (Sabas Gasataya) that respondent's obligation to DBP had already been settled. It is fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact, upon which benefit is obtained, to the prejudice of another.[11] Consequently, fraud is a ground for reconveyance.[12] | |||||
|
2003-05-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, while tax declarations and realty tax receipts do not conclusively prove ownership, they may constitute strong evidence of ownership when accompanied by possession for a period sufficient for prescription.[20] Considering that respondents have been in possession of the property for a long period of time, there is legal basis for their use of tax declarations and realty tax receipts as additional evidence to support their claim of ownership. | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| An action for reconveyance of a property is the sole remedy of a landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name after one year from the date of the decree so long as the property has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value.[16] The action does not seek to reopen the registration proceedings and set aside the decree of registration but only purports to show that the person who secured the registration of the property in controversy is not the real owner thereof.[17] Fraud may be a ground for reconveyance. For an action for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, the party seeking reconveyance must prove by clear and convincing evidence his title to the property and the fact of fraud.[18] | |||||