This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-08-17 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| While tax declarations are not conclusive proofs of ownership, however, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of 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.[19] Hence, as between Brigido and Catalino, the former had better right to the property. In other words, Catalino, not being the owner or possessor, could not validly sell the lot to respondents. | |||||
|
2001-03-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Neither can private respondent successfully invoke the doctrine of estoppel against petitioner. While it is true that private respondent obtained title to the subject land without government opposition, the government is not now estopped from questioning the validity of his certificate of title. It is, after all, hornbook law that the principle of estoppel does not operate against the Government for the act of its agents.[13] | |||||
|
2000-02-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| 'Thus possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership (Vamo vs. Government, 41 Phil. 161 [1920]; Adorable vs. Director of Forestry, 17 Phil. 410 [1960]). A parcel of forest land is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to register under the Torrens System (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 648; Republic vs. Vera, 120 SCRA 210 [1983]; Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 689 [1984].' " (italics ours) So, too, is the Court of Appeals' reliance on the case of Director of Land Management vs. Court of Appeals[9] misplaced. There, while the period of possession of the applicant's predecessor-in-interest was tacked to his own possession to comply with the required thirty year period possession requirement, the land involved therein was not forest land but alienable public land. On the other hand, in the case before us, the property subject of private respondents' application was only declared alienable in 1965. Prior to such date, the same was forest land incapable of private appropriation. It was not registrable and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, could not convert it into private property, (unless) and until such lands were reclassified and considered disposable and alienable.[10] alonzo | |||||