Wherein: -Both Plaintiff and Defendants are claiming a parcel of land in Quezon City (North Fairview if I remember correctly), each backed with different certificates of title -The Defendants’ TCTs are proven to be in derogation of Act 496 and PD 1529 as corresponding Decree Nos. shows land registration cases in other provinces -The Plaintiff’s claim is proven supported by both testimonial and documentary evidence
You may wonder how such case is relevant to what we have been discussing
SC Rulings mentioned: -Pilar Dev’t Corp vs Court of Appeals reiterated its ruling in Stilianopulos vs The City of Legaspi re: evidence or set of facts used in a complaint for quieting of title is the same as that which is necessary for its annulment -Dionisio Manaquil, et. al. vs Roberto Moico G.R. No. 180076 () re: for an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur: 1) Complainant/Plaintiff must have a legal or equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action 2) The deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on the complainant’s title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy
C. Regalado Co., Inc., was ordered to pay Plaintiff attorney’s fees, including appearance fees, and litigation expenses amounting to more or less P150,000. – by Judge Luis Zenon Q. Maceren
It is worth noticing that the documents presented as evidence by the plaintiff say a lot as to how and where the complaint’s strength and validity is based.
I suggest you check the evidences presented to see what merits are supporting what I have raised and mentioned previously.
A couple other things you might want to take note of: -“A certificate of title is a mere evidence of ownership; it is not the title to the land itself (I wonder what this would mean to those who actually studied Law). A certificate of title shall be a true copy of the Decree of Registration [Section 39, P.D. 1529] -“Any false statement in an application for public land shall ipso produce the cancellation of the title granted.” [Chacon Enterprises vs Court of Appeals, et. al. (124 SCRA 784)] -Outright Confiscation of Patently Fake or Spurious Certificates of Title [LRA Circular No 97-12-B issued 2 December, 1997 to All Register of Deeds, Deputy Register of Deeds, and All Concerned] -Reconveyance, Quieting, and Annulment of all the certificates of title from OCT 01 to 100,000 utilizing Don Gregorio M. Acopiado’s titles [CA-GR SP No. 70014 OCT 01 to 100,000 declared null and void ab initio, permanent injuction only pertains to Tallano pursuant to the Decision with Compromise Agreement on 4 February, 1972 in the original 1964 LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P through the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines]
I hope I was able to deliver my thoughts backed with what I consider facts as clear as possible so that at the very least, what I have put in here would have its own merits, even if it came from someone who did not even finish a Bachelor’s Degree.
You must have misunderstood me. I brought up the study of law not as an insult, but as a reference point.
RT-35941 and RT-35943 were declared null and void for having proceeded from an illegitimate source -Defendant B
What I’m trying to say is that reading all these things as a layman would likely lead to some misunderstandings here and there. There’s so much fundamentals and technicalities you need to know before you can say that you have read and properly understood a case ponencia like how the ponente really meant it or whether a legal opinion is sound or not.