This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-02-18 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| As a final note, this is not the first time this court was made to review two separate petitions appealed from two conflicting decisions, rendered by two divisions of the Court of Appeals, and originating from the same case. In Serrano v. Ambassador Hotel, Inc.,[88] we ordered the Court of Appeals to adopt immediately a more efficient system in its Internal Rules to avoid situations as this. | |||||
|
2013-11-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| x x x. The petitioner is not necessarily entitled to have the land registered under the Torrens system simply because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the registration of his land. He must show, even though there is no opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute owner, in fee simple. Courts are not justified in registering property under the Torrens system, simply because there is no opposition offered. Courts may, even in the absence of any opposition, deny the registration of the land under the Torrens system, upon the ground that the facts presented did not show that the petitioner is the owner, in fee simple, of the land which he is attempting to have registered. The Court is not unmindful of the principle of immutability of judgments, that nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable.[80] Such principle, however, must yield to the basic rule that a decision which is null and void for want of jurisdiction of the trial court is not a decision in contemplation of law and can never become final and executory.[81] | |||||