This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-02-20 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is settled that tax declarations and tax receipts alone are not conclusive evidence of ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership,[61] but when coupled with proof of actual possession of the property, they can be the basis of claim of ownership through prescription.[62] In the absence of actual, public and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership.[63] We have seen that there is no proof that Liborio, or the Casilang siblings conveyed Lot No. 4618 to Ireneo. There is also no proof that Ireneo himself declared Lot No. 4618 for tax purposes, and even if he or his heirs did, this is not enough basis to claim ownership over the subject property. The Court notes that TD No. 555 was issued only in 1994, two years after Ireneo's death. Rosario even admitted that she began paying taxes only in 1997.[64] More importantly, Ireneo never claimed Lot No. 4618 nor took possession of it in the concept of owner. | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner Alfredo's petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 were final orders.[37] They were not interlocutory because the proceedings were terminated; and left nothing more to be done by the appellate court. There were no remaining issues to be resolved in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461. Consequently, the proper remedy available to petitioner Alfredo then was to file before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and not a special civil action for certiorari. | |||||
|
2004-08-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| An order of dismissal, whether correct or not, is a final order.[58] It is not interlocutory because the proceedings are terminated; it leaves nothing more to be done by the lower court. Therefore the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the order.[59] | |||||