A certificate of title serves as evidence

The petitioners claim ownership and possession over a land, of an indefeasible and incontrovertible
alleging that the certificates of title held by the respondents title to the property in favor of the
were obtained through forgery. The respondents contend person whose name appears therein.
that they acquired the said properties in good faith. SC The holder is entitled to all the
ruled in favor of the respondents, since they held attributes of ownership, including
Sps. Gaela v. Tan certificates of title over the properties. possession.
The requisites for an entitlement to the
easement of right of way: (1) The
dominant estate is surrounded by other
immovables and has no adequate outlet
to a public; (2) There is payment of
proper indemnity; (3) The isolation is
not due to the acts of the proprietor of
the dominant estate; (4) The right of
Zerda owner of the dominant estate seeks to have an way claimed is at the point least
easement of right of way over the servient estate owned by prejudicial to the servient estate; and
Spouses Williams. However, despite his offer to pay insofar as consistent with this rule,
compensation for the portion of the servient estate to be where the distance from the dominant
burdened by the easement, the Spouses refused. SC ruled estate to a public highway may be the
Sps. Williams v. Zerda that Zerda is entitled to the easement of right of way. shortest
 DMCI acquired a lot in Manila near Taft Avenue, Ermita for
the construction of Torre de Manila condominium project. A
controversy arose because once the project is completed,
Torre de Manila will rise above the back of the Rizal
Monument in Luneta Park, ruining the view of the
monument from the Roxas Boulevard vantage point. The
Knights of Rizal filed a petition to stop the construction,
arguing that the project is a nuisance per se. SC held that
Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se. It cannot be
considered as a "direct menace to public health or safety"
because not only is a condominium project commonplace in
the City of Manila, but DMCI has also properly complied
Knights of Rizal v. DMCI with health and safety standards set by law.
The Province [P] donated part of a parcel of land owned by
it to CASTEA. The deed of donation restricted the use of the
property to the construction of the office building of
CASTEA in connection with CASTEA’s functions; the deed of
donation also provided for automatic revocation of the
donation in case of violation. CASTEA leased the property to
Bodega (violation). Bodega began possession. [P] requested
proof of Bodega’s basis for possession; Bodega failed to
provide such proof. [P] merely tolerated Bodega’s
possession. Eventually intending the property to be used for
development projects, [P] demanded for Bodega to vacate
the property. Bodega refused. MTC ruled in favor of [P]; RTC
and CA ruled in favor of Bodega; SC ruled in favor of [P].
HELD: Automatic Revocation Clause was valid, thus property
Camarines Sur v. reverts back to [P] – whose right of possession prevails over
Bodega Glassware Bodega’s claims under a Contract of Lease with CASTEA.
A nuisance per se, is one "recognized as
a nuisance under any and all
circumstances, because it constitutes a
direct menace to public health or safety,
and, for that reason, may be abated
summarily under the undefined law of
necessity."
When A donates a property to B and
such donation is validly revoked, A’s
right of possession based on ownership
prevails over any right that a third party
may have from a Contract of Lease with
B over the donated property. If, there
being two or more donations, the
disposable portion is not sufficient to
cover all of them, those of the more
recent date shall be suppressed or
reduced with regard to the excess.