[Solved] A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 1. He leased it to B. When sued for ejectment, B contended that A’s title is void. Is he correct?

Q.	A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 1. He leased it to B. When sued for ejectment, B contended that A’s title is void. Is he correct?
A.	Yes, because if A’s title is void, he has no right to sue B for ejectment;
B.	No, because that is a collateral attack on A’s title;
C.	Yes, because the decision on the title would be res judicata to the issue of the right to eject A;
D.	Yes, because a decision on the title of A is prejudicial to the right to eject B.
Answer» B. No, because that is a collateral attack on A’s title;

764

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Philippines Civil Law Society

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by a TCT No. 1. B stole the title, forged his signature and transferred it under his name. TCT No. 2 was issued under his name. He sold it to C who registered under his name. When returned to the Philippine in 2010, he discovered that his title was transferred to another. Can he recover the same?
A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 123 located in a subdivision property being developed by XYZ Corporation. He did not know the exact location of the lot, hence, he consulted the developer who pointed to a lot, hence, he constructed his house. It turned out that it was another lot covered by TCT No. 124. Is A a builder in good faith?
A sold a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 9 to B. At the time of the sale, B knew that C has been in possession of the parcel of land as early as 10 years before the sale. B however checked with the Registry of Deeds and found the title to be clean. Is B a buyer in good faith?
A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 1. Through an oral agreement between B & A. A agreed that the property be registered under the name of B so that he can use it in securing a loan with Metrobank. When A sought to recover the property from B, the latter refused contending that he was the owner of the same. Is the contention of B correct?
A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 1 consisting of 10,000 square meters more of less adjoining the river bank. Accretion was formed which has been in the possession of B in 1990, but it was disposed of by the Director of Lands to B in s2010. Is the Director correct?
X and Y are married. They were leasing a parcel of land in 2007; they constructed a house on the leased lot valued at P1M and resided thereon. While in business, they incurred liability from Z who sued them for failure to pay. Judgment was rendered and it became final and executory. Can the house be levied upon?
A, B & C are the co-owners of a parcel of land. They leased it to D. For failure to pay the rents, A alone sued D. Will the action prosper?
X and Y entered into a contract of sale over a parcel of land with an area of 4,000 square meters more or less. When the title was issued, it was 14,475 sq. meters. The buyer contended that he owned the whole lot of 14,475 sq. meters as it was sold in lump sum, hence, the seller should deliver the whole lot. Is the buyer correct?
A sold a parcel of land to B covered by TCT NO. 152 with C as a witness. When D wanted to buy a property, he executed a special power of attorney for E to buy a property for him. E entered into a contract of sale with A for the purchase of the same lot and registered it under the name of D. Who between B and D has a better right over the lot?
A is the owner of a property covered by TCT No. 10. As early as 1950, he knew that his title has been transferred under the name of B, but did nothing to recover it, knowing that B has been in possession. Can he file an action to recover it today?