This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-10-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| x x x.[23] Moreover, if the survey plan is approved by the Director of Lands and its correctness has not been overcome by clear, strong and convincing evidence, the presentation of the tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with.[24] All the evidence on record sufficiently identified the property as the one applied for by respondent, and containing the corresponding metes and bounds as well as area. Consequently, the original tracing cloth plan need not be presented in evidence.[25] | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| After a thorough examination of the cases cited by petitioner and a painstaking review of the case records, this Court cannot give credence to petitioner's stance. The scales of justice overwhelmingly tilt in favor of respondents and against petitioner's assertion that exclusive ownership of parcels 6 and 7 has vested in her. The fact that it was petitioner's money that was used for the repurchase of the properties does not make her the owner thereof, in the absence of convincing proof that would indicate such. This is more so if other evidence was adduced to show such is not the case. Neither will petitioner's exercise of acts of ownership over the properties bring us to that conclusion. It is evident that petitioner was allowed to maintain possession and enjoy the fruits of the property only by the mere tolerance of the other co-owners.[28] Moreover, although we recognize that real estate tax receipts indicating payment of realty tax and possession of the parcels are indicia of ownership, such are not conclusive proof of ownership, in the presence of other circumstances and evidence showing otherwise.[29] As a matter of fact, although the receipts indicate that the real estate tax payments for parcels 6 and 7 for the years following their repurchase and release were made by petitioner, the receipts also state that the declared owner of the properties is still the decedent Fabian Fangonil. | |||||