Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Torrens title is a land registration and land transfer system, in which a state creates and maintains a register of land holdings, which serves as the conclusive evidence (termed "indefeasibility") of title of the person recorded on the register as the proprietor (owner), and of all other interests recorded on the register.
Alexander A. Krivenko v. The Register of Deeds, City of Manila (G.R. No. L-630) [2] was a landmark case decided by the Philippine Supreme Court, which further solidified the prohibition of the Philippine Constitution that aliens may not acquire private or public agricultural lands, including residential lands.
Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569 [1] is a landmark New Zealand court case that went to the Privy Council on appeal. The case upheld the concept that an owner of interest in land which was originally obtained from the rightful owner through fraud, still obtains an indefeasible interest in that title if they were unaware of the fraud.
Breskvar v Wall, [1] was an Australian court case, decided in the High Court on 13 December 1971. The case was an influential decision in property law, specifically the effect of obtaining title by registration under the Torrens title system, the application of the fraud exception to the principle of indefeasibility and whether Frazer v Walker [2] should be followed in Australia.
Civil Code of the Philippines. REX Book Store. 2016. Tolentino, Arturo (1990). Civil Code of the Philippines:Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. I. Philippines: Central Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc. ISBN 971-16-0124-9. Sempio-Diy, Alicia (1988). Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines. Quezon City: Central Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc.
Thus, while the Civil Code seeks to govern all aspects of private law in the Philippines, a Republic Act such as Republic Act No. 9048 would concern itself with a more limited field, as in that case, the correction of entries in the civil registry. Still, the amendment of Philippine legal codes is accomplished through the passage of Republic Acts.
Some legal experts have called for the abolition of nullum tempus. [6] They argue that sovereign immunity, which they assert is the legal underpinning of nullum tempus, can lead to unjust results, and that nullum tempus is difficult to justify because policies underlying sovereign immunity bears no logical relations to those that support statutes of limitation.
Moot—changed circumstances have rendered the case of intellectual interest only; no ruling will have a practical effect on the law or jurisprudence. Act: N/A: English When on its own, as in "Act No. 3326", a law passed by the defunct colonial-era Philippine Legislature. A.M. N/A: English