Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RETUERTO v. ANGELO P. BARZ

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 176043 2014-01-15	SPS. BERNADETTE AND RODULFO VILBAR v. ANGELITO L. OPINION DEL CASTILLO, J.
and are presently enjoying actual possession of said property. However, these are not sufficient proofs of ownership. For some unknown reasons, the spouses Vilbar did not cause the transfer of the certificate title in their name, or at the very least, annotate or register such sale in the original title in the name of Dulos Realty. This, sadly, proved fatal to their cause. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that "a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein."[91] Having no certificate of title issued in their names, spouses Vilbar have no indefeasible and incontrovertible title over Lot 20 to support their claim. Further, it is an established rule that "registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land."[92] "Any buyer or mortgagee of realty covered by a Torrens certificate of title x x x is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title."[93] Failing to annotate the deed for the eventual transfer of title over Lot 20 in their names, the spouses Vilbar cannot claim a greater right over Opinion, who acquired the property with clean title in good faith and registered the same in his name by going through the legally required procedure. Spouses Vilbar's possession of the owner's copy of TCT No. 39849 is of no moment. It neither cast doubt on Gorospe Sr.'s TCT No. 117331 from which Opinion's TCT No. T-59011 covering Lot 20 emanated nor bar Gorospe Sr. from transferring the title over Lot 20 to his name. It
	GR No. 172250 2010-09-27	HEIRS OF PEDRO BARZ v. SPS. JOSE GESALEM AND ROSA GESALEM PERALTA, J.
On December 19, 2001, this Court rendered a Decision[4] in G.R. No. 148180, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59975. The Court held in the main that OCT No. 521, issued in the name of Pedro Barz on November 13, 1968, became indefeasible after the lapse of one year from the date of entry of the decree of registration, and could no longer be controverted.
	GR NO. 169890 2007-03-12	FELICIANO ESGUERRA v. VIRGINIA TRINIDAD CARPIO MORALES, J.
IN FINE, it is a fundamental principle in land registration that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. Such indefeasibility commences after the lapse or expiration of one year from the date of entry of the decree of registration when all persons are considered to have a constructive notice of the title to the property. After the lapse of one year, therefore, title to the property can no longer be contested. This system was so effected in order to quiet title to land.[38]
	GR NO. 164337 2006-06-27	VICENTE S. CENZON v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The issue presented for our consideration is, whether private respondent Sia, who is charged with Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d)[24] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818, for having issued bouncing checks in the amounts of P91,776,970.00 and P15,840,000.00, may be granted bail, as a matter of right, in accordance with DOJ Department Circular No. 74, dated 6 November 2001.
	GR NO. 152021 2005-05-17	HEIRS OF ERNESTO V. CONAHAP v. HEIRS OF PROSPERADOR* REGAÑA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Since the property is titled to the respondents, they are entitled to possess the same.[23] It bears stressing that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[24]
	GR No. 137909 2003-12-11	FIDELA DEL CASTILLO VDA. DE MISTICA v. SPS. BERNARDINO NAGUIAT AND MARIA PAULINA GERONA-NAGUIAT PANGANIBAN, J.
We clarify. The issuance of a certificate of title in favor of respondents does not determine whether petitioner is entitled to rescission. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that such title serves merely as an evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[17]
	GR No. 146341 2003-08-07	AQUILA LARENA JOINED BY HER HUSBAND v. FRUCTUOSA MAPILI PANGANIBAN, J.
Of no moment in the instant case is the issuance of a Torrens certificate pertaining to the disputed property.[22] It "does not create or vest title,"[23] but is merely an "evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein."[24] Land registration under the Torrens system was never intended to be a means of acquiring ownership.[25] Moreover, the Original Certificate of Title was never formally offered by petitioners. In its Order dated October 1, 1993,[26] the RTC considered their prolonged failure to offer it in evidence[27] as a waiver of their right to offer exhibits.[28] In so ruling, the court a quo followed the rule that evidence not formally offered should not be considered.[29]