This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-02-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Having read the entirety of the subject decision abovementioned, we find neither insufficiency nor ambiguity in its fallo so as to justify the issuance of the 13 June 1997 and 12 August 1997 Orders of the RTC. A careful examination of the Orders would straightaway reveal the superfluity of the need for clarification from the Court of Appeals. The reading by the RTC of the fallo of the 3 November 1994 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 34856 should have included the statements of the body thereof. This is sanctioned by the aphorism that a final and executory judgment may nonetheless be "clarified" by reference to other portions of the decision of which it forms a part[49]; that a judgment must not be read separately but in connection with the other portions of the decision of which it forms a part.[50] Otherwise stated, a decision should be taken as a whole and considered in its entirety to get the true meaning and intent of any particular portion thereof.[51] Indeed, as early as in Policarpio v. Philippine Veterans Board,[52] we have already settled the rule that in order to get to the true intent and meaning of a decision, no specific portion thereof should be resorted to, but the same must be considered in its entirety. | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The ruling is erroneous. An applicant seeking to establish ownership of land must conclusively show that he is the owner in fee simple,[7] for the standing presumption is that all lands belong to the State, unless acquired from the Government either by purchase or by grant, except lands possessed by an occupant and his predecessors since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been private property even before the Spanish conquest.[8] | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| An applicant seeking to establish ownership over land must conclusively show that he is the owner thereof in fee simple,[7] for the standing presumption is that all lands belong to the public domain of the State, unless acquired from the Government either by purchase or by grant, except lands possessed by an occupant and his predecessors since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been private property even before the Spanish conquest.[8] | |||||