This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| This Court has often warned of the pitfalls of reconstitutions of titles, which have resulted in innocent landowners losing their titled lands to crime syndicates specializing in forged titles and documents. The patently forged documents presented in these cases remind us of what this Court stated in Heirs of Pedro Pinote v. Dulay:[137] | |||||
|
2008-09-19 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| On cross-examination, witness testified that Pascual Ocariza was her grandfather who died single; that the brothers and sisters of Pascual Ocariza died already long time ago; that her father, Alejandro Bacalso, is the nephew of Pascual Ocariza; that there are plenty of other persons who are related to Pascual Ocariza; that she is the one who represented her grandfather Pascual Ocariza because they were plenty and that is the reason why the title should be issued in the name of Pascual Ocariza because they are going to subdivide this lot; that they have been in possession of this land for fifteen (15) years; that the tax declaration of said land was registered in the name of Pascual Ocariza.[8] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The Solicitor General appealed[9] the trial court's decision, arguing that respondents failed to prove their interest in Lot No. 4147,[10] he citing Heirs of Pedro Pinote v. Dulay[11] which held that | |||||