This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The right of a person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud is recognized by law as a valid and legal basis for reopening and revising a decree of registration.[58] One of the remedies available to him is a petition for review. To avail of a petition for review, the following requisites must be satisfied: (a) The petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land; | |||||
|
2001-05-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[27] Questions that may be entertained in a petition for certiorari must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[28] | |||||
|
2000-06-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| MWSS presented tax declarations to buttress its ownership of the land. True, tax declarations do not prove ownership. However, tax declarations can be strong evidence of ownership when accompanied by possession for a period sufficient for prescription.[18] Since MWSS possessed the land in the concept of owner for more than thirty (30) years preceding the application, MWSS acquired ownership by prescription. By placing the pipelines under the land, there was material occupation of the land by MWSS, subjecting the land to its will and control.[19] Petitioners cannot argue that MWSS' possession was not "open". The existence of the pipes was indicated above the ground by "pilapils". | |||||