Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 160956 2008-02-13	Joaquin Quimpo v. Consuelo Abad Vda. de Beltran NACHURA, J.
Petitioners also presented Tax Declaration Nos. 3650,[12] 3708,[13] and 3659[14] to substantiate Joaquin's claim of absolute dominion over parcels III and IV. But we note that these tax declarations are all in the name of Eustaquia Perfecto-Abad. These documents, therefore, do not support their claim of absolute dominion since 1946, but enervate it instead. Besides, the fact that the disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the name of Joaquin Quimpo does not necessarily prove ownership for it is well settled that a tax declaration or tax receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership.[15] The CA, therefore, correctly found this proof inadequate to establish Joaquin's claim of absolute dominion.
	GR NO. 145264 2005-08-30	NAPOLEON PORTES v. SEGUNDA ARCALA CARPIO, J.
Felomina had no right over Lot 2. However, Felomina still caused the reconstitution of the title of Lot 2. Reconstitution is simply the restoration of a lost or destroyed instrument or title to its original form and condition.[11] Felomina had nothing to reconstitute as no certificate of title was ever issued to her over Lot 2. The fraud in the reconstitution of Lot 2 is evident.