MOLINA, Jasmine E.

EH 307/4:30-6:30MW

Module 5-Legal Principles

Del Prado vs. Caballero (G.R. No. 148225, March 3, 2010)

In a contract of sale of a land mass, the specific boundaries stated therein must control over any other statement, with
respect to area contained within its boundaries. “More or less” is defined as approximately, or which intend to cover
slight or unimportant inaccuracies in quantity. This implies both parties assume risk of ordinary discrepancy.

Guaranteed Homes, Inc. vs. Valdez (G.R. No. 171531, Jan. 30, 2009)
The purchaser is not bound by the original certificate but only by the certificate of title of the person from whom he
had purchased the property.

It is well-settled that to sustain a dismissal on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, the
insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint, and the test of the sufficiency of the
facts alleged in the complaint to constitute a cause of action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court
could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.

Reyes vs. Raval -Reyes (G.R. No. L-21703, August 31, 1966)
Raval-Reyes
The court has already held that the owner of the land in whose favor and in whose name said land is registered and
inscribed in the certificate of title has a more preferential right to the possession of the owners' duplicate than one
whose name does not appear in the certificate and has yet to establish his right to the possession thereto.

Litam vs. Espiritu (G.R. No. L-7644, November 27, 1956)

The said writing in a certificate of title indicating who a party is married to, does not indicate that the property is
conjugal property, it only indicates marital status.

Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals and Vitug(G.R. No. 57757, August 31, 1987)
Vitug(G.R.
A person dealing with a registered land has a right to rely upon the face of the Torrens certificate of title and to
dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man make such inquiry.

Republic vs. Mendoza (G.R. No. 185091, August 8, 2010)

Republic
A decree of registration is conclusive upon all persons, including the Government of the Republic and all its branches,
whether or not mentioned by name in the application for registration or its notice. Indeed, title to the land, once
registered, is imprescriptible. No one may acquire it from the registered owner by adverse, open, and notorious
possession. Thus, to a registered owner under the Torrens system, the right to recover possession of the registered
property is equally imprescriptible since possession is a mere consequence of ownership.

D.B.T. Mar-Bay Construction, Inc. vs. Panes (G.R. No. 167232, July 31, 2009)
It is a well-entrenched rule in this jurisdiction that no title to registered land in derogation of the rights of the
registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
Caraan vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 140752, November 11, 2005)
Section 48, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (P.D. No. 1529), provides that "a certificate of title shall not be subject to
collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law."

Leyson vs. Bontuyan (G.R. No. 156357, Feb 18, 2005)

Section 47 of Act No. 496 provides that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack, the rule is that
an action is an attack on a title if its object is to nullify the same, and thus challenge the proceeding pursuant to which
the title was decreed. The attack is considered direct when the object of an action is to annul or set aside such
proceeding, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, an attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain
a different relief, an attack on the proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.

Ono vs. Lim (G.R. No. 154270, March 9, 2010)

Action for cancellation of title is not an attack on the title. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. – A certificate
of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law.