Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 166309-10 2007-03-09	REPUBLIC v. UNIMEX MICRO-ELECTRONICS GMBH CORONA, J.
In Department of Health v. C.V. Canchela & Associates,[30] we enunciated that this Court, as the staunch guardian of the people's rights and welfare, cannot sanction an injustice so patent in its face, and allow itself to be an instrument in the perpetration thereof. Over time, courts have recognized with almost pedantic adherence that what is inconvenient and contrary to reason is not allowed in law.[31] Justice and equity now demand that the State's cloak of invincibility against suit and liability be shredded.
	GR NO. 168155 2007-02-15	HEIRS OF MARINA C. REGALADO v. REPUBLIC CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for the tax declaration in the name of Marina,[44] it is not conclusive proof of ownership. While it is a good indication of possession in the concept of owner,[45] delayed declaration of property for tax purposes negates
	GR NO. 146527 2005-01-31	REPUBLIC v. MANNA PROPERTIES CARPIO, J.
We have ruled that while a tax declaration by itself is not sufficient to prove ownership, it may serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession.[17] However, the tax declarations presented by Manna Properties do not serve to prove their cause. Although Manna Properties claimed during trial that they were presenting the tax declaration proving possession since 12 June 1945,[18] a scrutiny of the tax declaration reveals that it is not the tax declaration Manna Properties claimed it to be. Exhibit Q-16 was in fact a substitute tax declaration allegedly issued on 28 November 1950. The annotation at the back of this tax declaration indicates that it was issued to replace the 1945 tax declaration covering the land in question. A substitute is not enough.
	GR No. 155138 2004-06-08	REPUBLIC v. SPS. TEODORO AND DELIA KALAW DAVIDE JR., CJ.
The evidence presented by the respondents that may prove possession are (1) the testimony of Roberto Sta. Maria that as early as 1960, he worked as a mechanic in the movie house owned and operated by the Kalaws, which was erected on the subject lot; (2) the Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land[40] dated 3 July 1978; and (3) the Report[41] of Rodolfo Gonzales of the CENRO stating, among other things, that the subject lot was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Nicolas Kalaw for the first time in 1970. Notably, tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at least, constructive possession.[42]
	GR No. 155012 2004-04-14	REPUBLIC v. CARMENCITA M. ALCONABA DAVIDE JR., CJ.
The records also reveal that the subject property was declared for taxation purposes by the respondents only for the year 1994. They paid the taxes thereon only for the years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1997. Being of recent dates, we cannot trust the assertion of the respondents that they immediately took possession of the property in the concept of an owner after the death of their parents. While belated declaration of a property for taxation purposes does not necessarily negate the fact of possession,[28] tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are, nevertheless, good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at least, constructive possession.[29]