This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the fact that respondents' complaint al$o prayed for the annulment of title and recovery of possession does not strip the trial court off of its jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Asking for the annulment of certain transfers of property could very well be achieved in an action for partition,[37] as can be seen in cases where courts determine the parties' rights arising from complaints asking not only for the partition of estates but also for the annulment of titles and recovery of ownership and possession of property.[38] In fact, in Bagayas v. Bagayas,[39] wherein a complaint for annulment of sale and partition was dismissed by the trial court due to the impropriety of an action for annulment as it constituted a collateral attack on the certificates of title of the respondents therein, this Court found the dismissal to be improper in the following manner: In Lacbayan v. Samoy, Jr. (Lacbayan) which is an action for partition premised on the existence or non-existence of co-ownership between the parties, the Court categorically pronounced that a resolution on the issue of ownership does not subject the Torrens title issued over the disputed realties to a collateral attack. It must be borne in mind that what cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title itself. As pronounced in Lacbayan: | |||||