This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-02-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| It is well settled that a certificate of title is void when it covers property of public domain classified as forest, timber or mineral lands. Any title issued covering non-disposable lots even in the hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for value shall be cancelled.[2] The rule must stand no matter how harsh it may seem. Dura lex sed lex.[3] Ang batas ay maaaring mahigpit subalit ito ang mananaig. | |||||
|
2007-01-26 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Sixth, of greater import is the basic tenet that neither prescription nor laches runs against the State. Thus, even granting arguendo that the subject lands had been erroneously issued titles in favor of third parties, which is definitely not the case; neither prescription nor estoppel by laches applies against the State. In a catena of cases, we have consistently reiterated this hornbook doctrine. Thus, in East Asia Traders, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines,[27] we reiterated the doctrine citing Reyes v. Court of Appeals:[28] | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Basic as a hornbook principle is that prescription does not run against the government. In Reyes vs. Court of Appeals,[10] we held: "In so far as the timeliness of the action of the Government is concerned, it is basic that prescription does not run against the State. x x x The case law has also been: 'When the government is the real party in interest, and is proceeding mainly to assert its own rights and recover its own property, there can be no defense on the ground of laches or limitation.' x x x | |||||
|
2000-01-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A similar situation existed in the case of Reyes v. Court of Appeals,[16] where a homestead patent issued to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was cancelled on the ground t at at the time it was issued, the subject land was still part of the public domain. In the said case, this Court ruled as follows -- | |||||