This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-09-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners submit that the mere classification of the land as alienable or disposable should be deemed sufficient to convert it into patrimonial property of the State. Relying on the rulings in Spouses De Ocampo v. Arlos,[7] Menguito v. Republic[8] and Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,[9] they argue that the reclassification of the land as alienable or disposable opened it to acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code; that Malabanan had purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco believing in good faith that Velazco and his predecessors-in-interest had been the real owners of the land with the right to validly transmit title and ownership thereof; that consequently, the ten-year period prescribed by Article 1134 of the Civil Code, in relation to Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, applied in their favor; and that when Malabanan filed the application for registration on February 20, 1998, he had already been in possession of the land for almost 16 years reckoned from 1982, the time when the land was declared alienable and disposable by the State. | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| To reiterate, the petitioner is not the proper party to file an action for reconveyance that would result in the reversion of the land to the government.[41] The petitioner has no personality to "recover" the property as he has not shown that he is the rightful owner thereof.[42] | |||||
|
2003-07-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In De Ocampo v. Arlos,[19] it was held that:x x x a title may be judicially confirmed under Section 48 of the Public Land Act only if it pertains to alienable lands of the public domain. Unless such assets are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable, occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 1073 clarified Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act by specifically declaring that the latter applied only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. In the case at bar, no certification from the appropriate government agency or official proclamation reclassifying the land as alienable and disposable was presented by respondent. Respondent merely submitted the survey map and technical descriptions of the land, which contained no information regarding the classification of the property. These documents are not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Sec. 101. All actions for reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. In other words, a private individual may not bring an action for reversion or any action which would have the effect of canceling a free patent and the corresponding certificate of title issued on the basis thereof, such that the land covered thereby will again form part of the public domain. Only the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead may do so.[29] Since Amelita Sola's title originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.[30] Clearly then, petitioner has no standing at all to question the validity of Amelita's title. It follows that he cannot "recover" the property because, to begin with, he has not shown that he is the rightful owner thereof. | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| What is more, "Under the Public Land Act as amended, only titles to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain may be judicially confirmed. Unless a public land is reclassified and declared as such, occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long ago, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights."[15] | |||||