This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-11-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Respecting the Declaration of Real Property in Gonzales' name, the same does not prove ownership of the questioned lot. It is settled that tax receipts and declarations of ownership for tax purposes are "not incontrovertible evidence of ownership; they only become evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property."[26] No such proof of actual possession of the property was presented. Besides, the Declaration of Real Property shows that it was effective in 1997, indicating that the declaration is of recent vintage.[27] It cannot thus prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession in the concept of an owner since time immemorial or since 1945. | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| On its face, the Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized; as such, it enjoys the presumption of regularity and carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution.[25] Absent evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant, the presumption must be upheld.[26] | |||||
|
2006-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Significant herein is this Court's elucidation in De Jesus v. Court of Appeals,[124] which reads - | |||||