Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BARRERA v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 152266 2010-07-02	HEIRS OF PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. ANGELINA PERONA PERALTA, J.
Pedro's allegation that the spouses Rosauro and Angelina resorted to fraud when they caused the cancellation of OCT No. 10075 and the issuance of TCT Nos. 17181, 17182 and 17183 in their name is equally unsupported by evidence. It must be stressed that mere allegations of fraud are insufficient. Intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some manner injure him, must be specifically alleged and proved.[22] 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.[23]
	GR No. 161925 2009-11-25	SPS. EXEQUIEL LOPEZ AND EUSEBIA LOPEZ v. SPS. EDUARDO LOPEZ AND MARCELINA R. LOPEZ NACHURA, J.
An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of a land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him.[12] The action does not seek to reopen the registration proceedings and to 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.[13]
	GR No. 177181 2009-07-07	RABAJA RANCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AFP RETIREMENT NACHURA, J.
No actual and extrinsic fraud existed in this case. In our jurisdiction, fraud is never presumed.[34] Mere allegations of fraud are not enough. Intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some manner, injure him must be specifically alleged and proved.[35] The burden of proof rests on petitioner, and the petitioner failed to discharge the burden. Petitioner did not convincingly show that the Homestead Patent issued to Charles is indeed spurious. More importantly, petitioner failed to prove that respondent took part in the alleged fraud which dated back as early as 1966 when Charles supposedly secured the fake and spurious Homestead Patent.
	GR No. 171056 2009-03-13	DINAH C. CASTILLO v. ANTONIO M. ESCUTIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The cancellation of petitioner's Tax Declaration No. 00942-A was not because of the issuance of a new owner's duplicate of TCT No. 181, but of the fact that Lot 1-B, which encompassed the 5,000 square meters petitioner lays claim to, was already covered by TCT No. 181 (and subsequently by TCT No. 129642) in the name of Catigbac. A certificate of title issued is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. It is binding and conclusive upon the whole world.[43] All persons must take notice, and no one can plead ignorance of the registration.[44] Therefore, upon presentation of TCT No. 129642, the Office of the City Assessor must recognize the ownership of Lot 1-B by Catigbac and issue in his name a tax declaration for the said property. And since Lot 1-B is already covered by a tax declaration in the name of Catigbac, accordingly, any other tax declaration for the same property or portion thereof in the name of another person, not supported by any certificate of title, such that of petitioner, must be cancelled; otherwise, the City Assessor would be twice collecting a realty tax from different persons on one and the same property.
	GR NO. 149238 2007-11-22	SIXTO ANTONIO v. SPS. SOFRONIO SANTOS AND AURORA SANTOS QUISUMBING, J.
We find petitioner's contentions unconvincing. For an action for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, this Court has held that the party seeking reconveyance must prove by clear and convincing evidence his title to the property and the fact of fraud.[10] The RTC, in making the abovementioned findings, was not treating petitioner's action for reconveyance as one for titling of property. But it was weighing whether petitioner has, by clear and convincing evidence, proven his title to the property. Moreover, the RTC, in its decision, discussed the merits of petitioner's ground for his action for reconveyance, i.e. whether or not respondents committed fraud in titling the subject property in their names. The RTC held that as shown by public records in the custody of the RTC, Pasig City and the Land Registration Authority, petitioner's claim that the property was fraudulently titled in the names of respondents is baseless. Thus, petitioner's contention that the RTC and the Court of Appeals treated his action for reconveyance as one for titling of property lacks any persuasive basis.
	GR No. 130876 2003-12-05	FRANCISCO ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
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.[85] I find that petitioner in this case has met his burden, that he has established his entitlement to the subject property and that he has a better right thereto than respondent, and more so, the Government. Following the law and the precedents, petitioner is entitled to the ownership and possession of the subject property.