This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-11-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Indeed, under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[30] No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the Government. It is indispensable, therefore, that there is a showing of a title from the State.[31] Occupation of public land in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.[32] | |||||
|
2008-09-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner cannot also invoke estoppel on the part of the OSG as to bar the latter from challenging the decision of the RTC. In land registration cases, the Solicitor General is not merely the principal, but the only legal counsel of the government.[40] The City Prosecutor appeared as counsel for the respondent before the RTC only after being deputized by the OSG. Being the representative of the Republic of the Philippines, the OSG, thus, falls within the purview of the doctrine which provides that estoppel does not operate against the state or its agents.[41] Although exceptions from this rule are allowed, as when there is a need to uphold a policy adopted to protect the public or to protect the citizens from dishonorable, capricious and ignoble acts by the government,[42] the same are not present in the instant case. In fact, public policy demands that the respondent, through the OSG, must deter dubious applications for registration of real property and protect within all legal means the inalienable public domain which rightfully belongs only to the State. | |||||
|
2006-05-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On 19 July 2001, the First Division of the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision[17] in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, essentially on the basis of another case already decided by the Supreme Court, Republic v. Sayo,[18] ruling thus - | |||||