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
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). (more…)Read More