Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VALIAO v. REPUBLIC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 197472 2015-09-07	REPUBLIC v. REV. CLAUDIO R. CORTEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State.[44] Hence, "[a]ll lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Also, public lands remain part of the inalienable land of the public domain unless the State is shown to have reclassified or alienated them to private persons."[45] To prove that a land is alienable, the existence of a positive act of the government, such as presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute declaring the land as alienable and disposable must be established.[46]
	GR No. 183511 2015-03-25	REPUBLIC v. EMETERIA G. LUALHATI PERALTA, J.
In addition to this, the real property tax register presented by respondent evidenced payment of realty taxes only from 1949 up to 1958. Consequently, this Court cannot concede to respondent's assertion that she had been adversely possessing the properties beginning in 1944 up until the filing of her complaint in 2004, or for a duration of sixty full years, when the evidence presented depicts payment of taxes for only nine years. Payment of realty taxes for a brief and fleeting period simply cannot be considered sufficient proof of ownership. It is clear, therefore, that respondent's assertion of possession before 1945 will not suffice for applicants for registration must present proof of specific acts of possession and ownership and cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law rather than factual evidence of possession.[23]
	GR No. 157485 2014-03-26	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF MAXIMA LACHICA SIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
After a thorough review of the records, we agree with petitioner. As this Court held in the fairly recent case of Valiao v. Republic[12]:Under the Regalian doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or disposable to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title. The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable.
	GR No. 197028 2013-10-09	REPUBLIC v. CARMEN VICTORIA BELMONTE MENDOZA, J.
Corollarily, tax declarations are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.[57] The subject lots may have been declared for taxation purposes in the name of Belmonte's predecessor-in-interest, but it does not automatically prove ownership especially when the details in the tax declarations do not match. As aptly observed by the OSG, some tax declarations contain discrepancies in the area. With regard to Lot No. 3766, several tax declarations indicated the area as measuring 5,817 sq.m., while the other tax declarations showed the area as 6,884 sq.m. With Lot No. 5194, some tax declarations stated an area of 7,123 sq.m., while others had 4,235 sq.m. These inconsistencies coupled by the erratic declarations for tax, in the absence of other competent evidence, negate open and continuous possession in the concept of an owner.
	GR No. 195097 2012-08-13	REPUBLIC v. MARLON MEDIDA REYES, J.
As the rule now stands, an applicant must prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable by establishing the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable.[21] In a line of cases, we have ruled that mere notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered properties' alienable and disposable character. Our ruling in Republic of the Philippines v. Tri-Plus Corporation[22] is particularly instructive: It must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.